Roman Documents from the Greek East: Senatus Consulta and Epistulae to the Age of Augustus

•

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST SENATUS CONSULT A AND EPISTULAE TO THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS ROBERT K. SHERK

THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

The photograph reproduced as the frontispiece is that of a squeeze showing the text of document N o . 12, Senatus ConsuUum de Agro Pergameno. The upper half of the photograph has been enlarged for reproduction on the jacket. (Courtesy of the author.) Copyright © 1969 by The Johns Hopkins Press Baltimore, Maryland 21218 All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 68-19442

PREFACE

Paul Viereck's dissertation, entitled Sermo graecus quo senatus populusque romanus magistratusque populi romani usque ad Tiberii Caesaris aetatem in scriptis publicis usi sunt (Gottingen, 1888), was a pioneer work that assembled for the first time all the extant copies of Roman senatus consulta,foedera, and epistulae down to the Principate of Tiberius. In the years that followed its publication Viereck turned away from such studies generally and worked in the new and rapidly expanding field of papyrology, without, however, forgetting his earlier interest. After World War I he began to make plans for a new edition of his first book. Other duties constantly interrupted his work, and World War II found him still collecting information and making notes of new texts on the subject. He died on February 9, 1944, in Wittenberge at the age of seventy-nine. His Nachlass revealed that he had planned a second edition of his Sermo Graecus on a scale much vaster than was possible for the original work. It was to include not only the material from the Republic but also all the epistulae and edicta of the Empire. His papers and plans for this work eventually reached the hands of James H. Oliver and the present writer. For the most part the papers consist of handwritten copies of the Greek texts as they were published in collections such as Dittenberger's Sylloge or in various periodicals. Oc­ casionally he had taken the time to add a note or two of his own to these bare copies. Whenever the reader of the present volume finds the reference Viereck (notes) he will know that the information given has been found in his posthumous papers. The importance of assembling and studying all documents of the same type has been well illustrated by such publications as L. Robert's magnificent Les gladiateurs dans ΓOrient grec, C. B. Welles's Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period, and J. H. Oliver's Sacred Gerusia, to name only a few of the outstanding examples. The geo­ graphic arrangement of inscriptions followed in the various Corpora is a necessary and useful one, but the process should not stop there. An arrangement by type or category would in many ways be far more useful to the investigator of religion, public law, or any of the various institutions of the ancient world. Clearly, the decrees of the Roman Senate and the letters of Roman magistrates can be studied more effectively this way, and it was for this reason that the present work was thought to be necessary. Several problems were encountered almost immediately. There was the matter of chronological limitation. The large number of imperial letters and edicts made it clear that no single volume could possibly include them all. Division was inevitable. The most that one volume could include easily would be the material from the Republic. Then it proved inadvisable to remove the Augustan decrees and letters from such a volume, for the figure of Augustus stands as a bridge between the old and the new and not merely as the founder of the Principate. Thus the basic design came to be the pres-

v

PREFACE

entation of all the Roman material in Greek down to the death of Augustus, complete with bibliography, apparatus, and commentary. In the establishment of the text the matter of control was considered vital. In the case of inscriptions on stones that had been lost after their discovery in modern times, there was, of course, little to do but to utilize the old copies. But for all the others every effort was made to verify the readings. The author is especially indebted to Professor Giinther Klaffenbach, who made it possible for him to examine many squeezes from the incom­ parable collection in Berlin. Whenever these were used, the word squeeze was added to the heading of the document in question. In addition, Mr. Pierre MacKay kindly took the time to photograph and to make a new squeeze of the S.C. de agro Pergameno, and Mr. Sacantis Symeonoglou graciously sent me a photograph and a squeeze of 7.G., VII, 2413-14. Every line of text of the remaining documents was verified, wherever possible, by the use of published photographs. This is a study in which epigraphical texts have been used to illustrate the machinery of Roman public law and to broaden our knowledge of republican history. One papyrological text (No. 57) has been admitted, but the decrees and letters found in our literary sources have been excluded. The model followed by Viereck in this regard is as valid now as it was then. It soon became apparent, in the course of assembling the material, that very extended commentaries were out of the question, for some of them would easily fill small volumes in themselves. The commentaries, therefore, had to be limited to the presentation of only essential information. They were designed to orient the reader in the historical background of the documents, to acquaint him with problems of interpretation, and to give him full bibliographical references. Occasionally it was believed necessary to include documents other than decrees or letters in order to place those texts in their proper historical perspective. To lift any document out of the body of a large dossier is almost always risky. Such a procedure may not be tampering with evidence, but it is certainly one which can often omit facts of importance. Sometimes, as in No. 68 (Augustus to Sardis), it was impractical to in­ clude ail the documents in a dossier. Through the financial assistance provided by the Research Foundation of the State University of New York and the Graduate School of the State University of New York at Buffalo, the expenses involved in travel and extended research were reduced to a minimum. For the original idea of such a work and the encouragement to carry it through, deep gratitude is owed to James H. Oliver. He read the entire manuscript and made possible the elimination of many errors. T. R. S. Broughton and E. Badian also read the manuscript and contributed a large number of suggestions, many of which were adopted in the final stages of the work. To both of them I would like to acknowledge my thanks. The responsibility, of course, for all omissions and mistakes is mine alone. ROBERT K. SHERK

VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface

ν

List of Abbreviations PART I: SENATUS

xi CONSULT A

A. Special Bibliography on Senatus Consulta

2

B. Introduction

4

C. The Documents 1. Epistulae Spurii Postumii et Senatus Consultum de Privilegiis Delphorum

20 21

2. Senatus Consultum de Thisbensibus 26 3. Senatus Consultum de Coroneia 32 4. Epistula P. Cornelii Blasionis et Senatus Consultum de Ambraciotibus et Athamanibus 34 5. Senatus Consultum de Sarapeo Deli Insulae 37 6. Senatus Consultum de Prienensibus et Ariarathe 40 7. Epistula M. Aemilii et Senatus Consultum de Magnetum et Prienensium Litibus 44 8. Epistula P. Sextilii cum Senatus Consulto 48 9. Senatus Consultum de Narthaciensium et Melitaeensium Litibus 49 10. Senatus Consulta de Prienensium et Samiorum Litibus 54 11. Senatus Consultum Popillianum de Pergamenis 59 12. Senatus Consultum de Agro Pergameno 63 13. Senatus Consultum de Rebus Phrygiae Ordinandis 74 14. Epistula L. Calpumii Pisonis et Senatus Consultum de Itanorum et • Hierapytnioruro T-itibu* 78 15. Senatus Consultum de Collegiis Artificum Bacchiorum 86 16. Senatus Consultum et Foedus cum Astypalaeensibus 94 17. Senatus Consultum de Tabenis 100 18. Senatus Consultum de Stratonicensibus 105 19. Senatus Consultum de Cormis 112 20. Epistula L. Cornelii Sullae cum Senatus Consulto de Thasiis 115 21. Epistula Cn. Cornelii Dolabellae 119 22. Senatus Consultum de Asclepiade 124 23. Senatus Consultum aliaque acta de Oropiorum et Publicanorum Contro versus 133 24. Senatus Consultum de Issaeis ? 139

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

Senatus Consultum de Agris Mytilenaeorum Epistulae et Senatus Consulta de Mytilenaeis Senatus Consultum de Panamara Epistula M. Antonii ad Plarasenses et Aphrodisienses et Senatus Consultum Senatus Consultum de Aphrodisiensibus Senatus Consultum (?) de Rebus Stratonicensium Edictum Augusti et Senatus Consultum de Pecuniis Repetundis Senatus Consultum (?) de Heraeo Samiorum et Asclepieo Coorum PART Π:

33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. ΛΠ 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61.

143 146 158 163 17° 172 174 183

EPISTULAE

A. Introduction: Official Roman Correspondence during the Republic

186

B. The Documents

210

Epistula T. Quinctii Flaminini ad Chyretienses Epistula M. Valerii Messalae Praetoris ad Teios Epistula Lucii Comelii Scipionis eiusque fratris ad Heracleotas ad Latmum Epistula Lucii Comelii Scipionis fratrisque ad Colophonios Epistula Manii Acilii ad Delphos Epistula C. Livii (Salinatoris) ad Delphos Epistula Licinii cuiusdam ad Amphictiones Epistula aut Magistratus aut Legati Romani de Perseo Rege ad Amphictiones Epistula (Magistratus Romani ?) ad Eresios Epistula Magistratus Romani ad Amphictiones Epistula Q. Fabii Maximi ad Dymaeos Epistulae Magistratuum Romanorum ad Collegia Artificum Bacchiorum Epistula (Magistratus Romani ?) de Arbitrorum Iudicio Epistula (Magistratus Romani ?) ad Cyparissenses Epistulae Q. Mucii Scaevolae de Sardianorum et Ephesiorum Foedere Epistula C. Cassii ad Nysaeos de Chaeremone Dnae Epistulae L. Comelii Sullae de Collegiis Artificum Bacchiorum Iudicium Cn. Comelii Lentuli Marcellini Epistula Magistratus Romani de Agris Mytilenaeorum Epistula Magistratus Romani ad Milesios Aliosque Epistula Magistratus Romani ad Ilienses Epistula C. Itflii Caesaris ad Pergamenos Epistula P. Servilii Isaurici ad Pergamenos Epistula L. Sestii Quirinalis ad Thasios Epistula Marci Antonii ad Koinon Asiae Epistulae Octaviani de Seleuco Nauarcha Epistula Magistratus Romani ad Mylasenses Epistula Octaviani ad Mylasenses Epistula cuiusdam Vinicii ad Cumas et Iussum Augusti

211 214 217 219 221 225 229 233 240 242 246 249 253 255 256 260 263 207 269 272 277 280 285 288 290 294 308 310 313

TABLE OF CONTENTS

62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78.

Epistula (?) Augusti ad Samios Epistula M. Agrippae ad Gerusiam Argivam Epistula Augusti ad Eresios Epistula Pauli Fabii Maximi et Decreta de Fastis Provincialibus Epistula P. Cornelii Scipionis ad Thyatirenos Epistula Augusti ad Cnidios Epistula Augusti ad Sardianos Epistula Cn. Cornelii Lentuli ad Nysaeos Epistula Proconsulis ad Chios Edictum (?) M. Herennii Picentis de Muro Ephesio Epistulae Imperatoris cuiusdam ad Mytilenaeos Epistula et Foedus Epistula (Magistratus Romani ?) ad Mytilenaeos Epistula ad Mytilenaeos Epistula (Magistratus Romani ?) Epistula (Magistratus Romani ?) Epistula (Cn. Pompei Magni ?)

General Bibliography

321 323 325 328 338 341 346 348 351 354 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365

Indexes I: II: III: IV: V: VI: VII:

ix

Sermo Graecus Verba Latina Nomina Graeca Nomina Romana Nomina Locorum Gentium, Similia Sacra Reges

369 386 388 390 393 395 396

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

INSCRIPTIONS A.E. - L'Annee Upigraphique Choix - Choix d'Inscriptions de Delos C.I.G. - Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum C.I.L. - Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum Ehrenberg-Jones - Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius I.G. - Inscriptiones Graecae I.G.R.R. - Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas Pertinentes I.L.S. - Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae O.G.I.S. - Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae S.E.G. - Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum Sermo Graecus - Sermo graecus quo senatus populusque romanus magistratusque populi romani usque ad Tiberii Caesaris aetatem in scriptis publicis usi sunt S.I.G.1'3 - Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum T.A.M. - Tituli Asiae Minoris BOOKS C.A.H. - Cambridge Ancient History iitudes - Utudes d'Upigraphie et d'Histoire Grecques P.I.R.2 - Prosopographia Imperii Romani R.E. - Real-Encyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft S.E.H.H.W. - Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World S.E.H.R.E. - Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire PERIODICALS A J. A. - American Journal of Archaeology A.J.P. - American Journal of Philology Άρχ. 'Εφ.-'Αρχαιολογική Έφημ€ρίς Athen. Mitt. - Mitteilungen des deutschen archaologischen Institutst Athenische Abteilung B.C.Η -Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique Jahreshefte -Jahreshefte des oesterreichischen archaologischen Instituts J.H.S. -Journal of Hellenic Studies J.R.S. -Journal of Roman Studies R.U.G. - Revue des Utudes Grecques

xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Sitzungsberichte Berlin - Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse Sitzungsberichte Wien - Sitzungsberichte der [Kaiserlichen) Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-historische Klasse Z.S.S. - Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fur Rechtsgeschichte, romanistische Abteilung

xii

I SENATUS

CONSULTA

A. SPECIAL BIBLIOGRAPHY ON SENATUS

i. SENATUS

CONSULTA

CONSULTA

A N D PROCEDURE

E. Hiibner, De Senatus Populique Romani Actis (supp. 3, Jahrbiicher fur Classische Philologie) (Leipzig, 1859), pp. 559fF. P. Willems, Le Senat de la republique romaine, II (Louvain-Berlin 1883), 144-223. B. Pick, De Senatusconsultis Romanorum, pt. 1 (Diss., Berlin, 1884). O. Karlowa, Romische Rechtsgeschichte, vol. 1 (Leipzig, 1885), pp. 64ofF. Th. Mommsen, Romisches Staatsrecht, III3, 2 (Leipzig, 1888), 905-1048. P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Diss., Gottingen, 1888). Ch. Lecrivain, in Daremberg-Saglio, Dictionnaire des Antiquites Grecques et Romaines, s.v. "Senatus Consul turn," pp. 1199-1200. G. Pacchioni, Corso di diritto romano1, vol. 1 (Turin, 1918), pp. 258fF. F. Stella Maranca, "Di alcuni senatosconsulti nelle iscrizioni latine," Rendiconti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei, Classe scienze morali, Storiche e Filologiche, VI, no. 1 (1925): 504-49. B. Loreti-Lorini, "II potere legislativo de senato romano," Studi in onore di Pietro Bonfante, IV (Milan, 1930), 379-95. A. Stein, Romische Inschriften in der antiken Literatur (Prague, 1931), pp. I3ff. (examples in the literature). A. O'Brien Moore, R.E., suppl. 6 (1935), s.v. "Senatus," cols. 700-19 (procedure); s.v. "Senatus Consultum," cols. 800-12 (redaction, formulas, Greek copies, publication, and a list). S. Riccobono, Fontes iuris Romani antejustiniani2, pt. 1 (Florence, 1941), pp. 237-39. B. Biondi and V. Arangio-Riiiz, Aua Dlvi Angustl (Rome, 1945)» ρ ρ '}^?-?Λ.(Augustan S.C.*). L. Wenger, Die Quellen des Romischen Rechts (Vienna, 1953), pp. 381-88. V. Arangio-Ruiz, Storia del diritto romano7 (Naples, i960), pp. 237-40. 2. THE ARCHIVES IN ROME Th. Mommsen, "Sui modi usati da' Romani nel conservare e pubblicare le leggi ed i senatusconsulti," Annali dell* Istituto di corrispondenza archeological 30 (1858): 181-212 (Gesammelte Schriften, 3: 290-313). P. Willems, op. cit., pp. 217-23. Th. Mommsen, Romisches Staatsrechty II3 (Leipzig, 1887), 545-49, 557-61. W. Kubitschek, R.E., s.v. "Aerarium," cols. 667-74.

2

SENATUS

CONSULTA

Κ. Dziatzko, R.E., s.v. "Archive," cols. 559-64. E. Weiss and E. Sachers, R.E., s.v. "Tabularium," cols. 1962-69. A. O'Brien Moore, op. cit., cols. 805-6. M. Puma, La Conservazione dei documenti giuridici nell' antica Roma (Palermo, 1935). L. Wenger, op. cit., pp. 55-59, 65-74, 379-8i-

3. GREEK COPIES, TRANSLATIONS, INFLUENCE OF LATIN ON GREEK Ch. Diehl, B.C.H., 9 (1885): 455#· Th. Mommsen, Rbmisches Staatsrecht, III3, 1004-15. P. Viereck, op. cit., pp. 55-88. T. Eckinger, Die Orthographie lateinischer Wbrter in griechischen Inschriften (Munich, 1892). D. Magie, De Romanorum iuris publici sacrique vocabulis sollemnibus in Graecum sermonem conversis (Diss., Halle, 1904). L. Hahn, Rom und Romanismus im griechisch-rbmischen Osten: Mit besonderer Berucksichtigung der Sprache, bis aufdie Zeit Hadrians (Leipzig, 1906). P. Viereck, Berliner Philologische Wochenshcrift, vol. 34 (1907), col. 1068. F. Zilken, Inscriptiones Latinae Graecae bilingues (Leipzig, 1909). A. Stein, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Verwaltung Aegyptens unter rbmischer Herrschafi (Stuttgart, 1915), pp. i32fF. Ch. Dottling, Die Flexionsformen lateinischer Nomina in den griechischen Papyri und Inschriften (Lausanne, 1920). B. Meinersmann, Die lateinischen Wbrter und Namen in den griechischen Papyri (Leipzig, (1927).

J. Stroux and L. Wenger, "Die Augustus-Inschrift auf dem Marktplatz von Kyrene," Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophischhistorische Klasse, vol. 34, treatise 2 (Vienna, 1928), sec. 3, "Uber die Sprache," pp. 18-43 (by Stroux). A. Wilhelm, "Lateinische Worter in griechischen Inschriften," Wiener Studien, 46 (1928): 2 2 7 - 3 2 .

P.. J. Bonner, "The Conflict of Languages in th? Roman World,"-TV- Classical.,... Journal, 25 (1929/30): 579-92. A. Cameron, "Latin Words in the Greek Inscriptions of Asia Minor," A.J.P., 52 (1931): 2 3 2 - 6 2 .

V. Bassler, Inscriptiones Graecae Latinae bilingues (Diss., Prague, 1934). A. O'Brien Moore, op. cit., cols. 803-4, 806-8. L. Gallet, "Essai sur le Senatus-Consulte de Asclepiade Sociisque," Revue historique de droit frangais et etranger, 4 a ser., 16 (1937): 259-62. F. F. von Schwind, Zur Frage der Publikation im romischen Recht (Munchener Beitrage 31) (Munich, 1940), pp. 53-63· R. Cavenaile, "Influence latine sur le vocabulaire grec d'Egypte," Chroniques d'Ugypte, 26 (1951): 391-404-

3

Β. INTRODUCTION

ι. THE SENATUS

CONSULTA

A N D THEIR SOURCES

The reader of Livy or Dionysius of Halicamassus who keeps his attention fixed upon Roman political institutions soon discovers the wide variety and amazing number of senatus consulta issued during the Republic. The Senate was often an extremely busy organ of government, for, unlike our modern Congress, it rarely had an official holiday or vacation. Senators were expected to be on hand constantly and, down to the first century, were subject to call on almost any day of the year.1 Beginning with the first recorded notice of a senatorial decree in the period of the Republic, introduced on the relatio of Brutus and providing ut omnes Tarquiniae gentis exsules essent (Livy 2.2. 11), their number and subject matter increased in direct proportion to the political and military expansion of Rome. They dealt with almost every possible aspect of political life, and their contents alone present a vivid outline of the competence and jurisdiction of the Senate: matters of private law, treaties, international arbitration, triumphs, public honors and games, funeral ceremonies, thanksgiving, declarations of war and peace, military levies, advisability of appointing dictators, emergency powers for the consuls, constitutional or magisterial modifications, prorogation of certain magistrates, elections, founding of colonies, salaries for soldiers, public lands, temples, finance, instructions to magistrates, and provincial administration, inter alia. In the strict theory of law a decree of the Senate was merely advice to the magistrate who requested it, and, it has been said, the whole Senate was the consilium of the higher magistrates—a board of advisers. But the peculiar nature of the Roman State during the Republic made it de facto much more than that, for the senatorial order as a whole was a social as well as «rpulilic*! organization By its exclusiveness and its monopolization of the higher magistracies the Senate controlled the entire state and perpetuated itself trom generation to generation by marriages and liaisons within its own orbit. Thus co­ operation among its members was essential, even though the aggrandizement of personal power was the individual goal. Each one of the senators owed his position, his privileges, and his career to that nice balance of ability, social connections, and political collegiality which formed the living body of the Senate. Each was forced to look to the others for the continuation and strengthening of his own interests. Hence the will or desire of the 1 Willems, op. cit., pp. 149-56; A. O'Brien Moore, R.E., s.v. "Senatus," cols. 702-3. Apparently even the division of days into dies fasti and nefasti did not affect meetings of the Senate. But Varro {apud Aulus Gellius 14. 7. 9) tells us that there were some days on which no meeting could take place. W e do not know what days he meant. Not until quite late (perhaps either 71 or 61 B.C.) did a lex Pupia introduce regulations on the days on which the Senate could not meet. Unfortunately, exact details are not known; see Weiss, &.£., s.v. "Lex Pupia," col. 2405.

4

SENATUS

CONSL^ + A

senatorial class became a kind of silent command; one could disregard it and place his career in jeopardy or listen and gain power. To incur the displeasure of the Senate could be fatal. Only a strong man with a large following could challenge it successfully—a condition generally reserved for the late Republic. The higher magistrates therefore consulted the Senate, not only to be advised of the proper and the most expedient pro­ cedure to follow in difficult situations, but also to discover its will or desire. A long tradition had given Rome a Senate, and, with the passing of the monarchy, the New Republic continued to use it and made of it an institution that soon formed the very heart and soul of the ruling class. Naturally, when the aristocrats had expelled the kings, they formed the New Republic around themselves, i.e., around the Senate. Consulting it therefore generated a kind of collective responsibility, at least to a degree. A competent magistrate convened the Senate, presided over the meeting, introduced a relatio, and asked for sententiae. When he judged that a sufficient number of opinions had been heard, he asked for the vote. 2 Such in brief was the procedure, and so power­ ful was the force of the resultant senatus consultum that, even when vetoed by a tribune, it became known as a senatus auctoritas and occasionally could still command some degree of political influence. Although technically in Republican times they had no legislative force, nevertheless, representing the voice of the Senate as they did, the result was that senatus consulta were felt to be binding. And by the time of the early Empire they had acquired the full force of law. 3 Unfortunately for the student of Roman constitutional form, comparatively few complete texts of these decrees have survived. A new and full collection of all the refer­ ences to them that appear in our sources throughout the entire period of Roman law would fill a small book, but most of them would be mere references with, at best, sum­ maries of their contents.4 By far the overwhelming majority of the actual texts have been lost. And the authors who refer to them, such as Livy, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Appian, or Diodorus, may never have consulted the originals at all. They were usually content with the second-hand information they found in the works of their predecessors.5 2 For full details on the procedure followed in the Senate see the works of Willems, Mommsen, and O'Brien Moore cited in the Special Bibliography on Senatus Consulta. 3 Senaiii5ccxsultu;:i est quod ssnctu: iuhet aique constiiuit idquc hgis vicem optinet, quamvis fuerit quaesituw Gaius I. 4. See Loreti-Lorini, loc. cit., and the remarks of H. F. Jolowicz, Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law2 (Cambridge, 1952), pp. 372-74. 4 E. Hiibner, op. cit., has attempted to give such a list, but it is incomplete and now almost hopelessly antiquated. There is room for a new work, a collection of references chronologically arranged and with a short summary added to each, similar to what Rotondi has done for the leges. The present writer has already started such a work. 5 See P. G. Walsh, Livy: Historical Aims and Methods (Cambridge, 1961), pp. 112-14, who notes that Livy's account of the S.C. de Bacchanalibus, in bk. 39, sec. 14, 11. 3-9, differs from the extant copy (C.I.L., I2, 581); cf. the remarks of R. M. Ogilvie, A Commentary on Livy: Books 1-5 (Oxford, 1965), pp. 5-17. For Dionysius of Halicarnassus we have his own statement (bk. I, 7) for the sources he used (Cato, Fabius Maximus, Valerias Antias, Licinius Macer, and other annalists). Appian's chief sources were also the annalists, especially Asinius Pollio, and the reliable Greeks Polybius and Hieronymus: details in Schwartz, R.E., s.v. "Appianus," cols. 216-37, and the Introduction to E. Gabba's edition of Appiani Bellorum Civilium Liber Primus (Florence, 1958), pp. xxii-xxv. Notices or sum-

5

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Polybius, however, does appear to have consulted some original material in this regard, but never to the point of quoting the full text.6 Such a distinction was claimed by Josephus, who, in his Jewish Antiquities, has given us what he claims are true copies of those senatus consulta which concerned Jewish history. They may be regarded in general as genuine, but whether he changed anything or was guilty of mistakes in transcription is a matter of conjecture. Even the texts he gives may be mere copies of copies.7 Frontinus (De aquis urbis Romae ioo, 104, 106, 108, 125, 127) gives us excerpts from the six senatus consulta passed in 11 B.C. concerning aqueducts. Suetonius quotes from the S.C. de philosophis et rhetoribus of 161 B.C., and Aulus Gellius from a S.C. de hastis Martiis of 99 B.C.8 From Macrobius (Sat. 1. 12. 35) we learn of a S.C. de mense Augusto of 8 B.C. And Cicero (Ad Fam. 8. 8. 5-8) quotes in extenso from several senatus auctoritates, vetoed by the tribunes, and one senatus consultum of 51 B.C., De provinciis consularibus.9 Thus the literary sources have given us a mass of information on senatorial decrees— mostly in the form of summaries or notices—but only a handful of actual texts or parts of texts. For the later period of Roman history, the Principate through the Dominate, the story is not much brighter. The Codex of Justinian, the Digest, and other legal sources then add to our knowledge. These too, however, usually give summaries or notices, occasionally excerpts. Although we possess not one of the originals, i.e., those on deposit in the aerarium Satumi in Rome, fortunately, official copies (exempla, αντίγραφα) were often made and sent or given to interested parties upon request. These official copies were then used, especially by the Greeks, to set up permanent records of those decrees which concerned them. It is to the Greek inscriptions, therefore, or to the Greek copies, that we look for full texts in sufficient number and of wide enough chronological spread to study the nature and the redaction of Roman senatus consulta. Naturally the subject matter of these inscriptions will be limited generally to those matters which caused the Greek cities to go to the Roman Senate and seek official action: to obtain ασυλία either for a maries of senatus consulta, of course, are found in many other historians and writers. N o attempt at an exhaustive treatment of such notices can be made here. 0 Viereck, Sermu GratMS, pp. 89-91, still has the best treatment on the senatorial decrees preserved in Polybius. For the treaties in Polybius see E. Taubler, Imperium Romanum (Leipzig, 1913), pp. 373-77, whose remarks must be tempered by the observations of A. HeuB, "AbschluB und Beurkundung antiker Staatsvertrage," Klio, 27 (1934): 45-53. On the general sources of Polybius see K. Ziegler, R.E., s.u. "Polybios," cols. 1560-O4, and F. W . Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius (Oxford, 1957). PP· 26-35; cf. E. Mioni, Polibio (Padua, 1949), pp. 119-27. 7 Josephus Ant. 13. 9. 2; 14. 8. 5; 14. 10. 10. A large literature has developed concerning these decrees, for there are numerous problems of chronology and sources. A useful discussion of the older theories, together with a full evaluation of all the important documents given by Josephus, will be found in Viereck, op. cit.y pp. 91-116. A full bibliography is given by Ralph Marcus in his Loeb edition of Josephus, vol. 7 (London and Cambridge, Mass., 1943), a PP· J» PP· 775~77- It is very probable, as Niese and Viereck believed, that Josephus found these documents in books 123-24 of the history written by Nikolaos of Damascus. 8 Suetonius De Rhetoribus 1; Aulus Gellius 4. 6. 2. 9 On these see M. van den Bruwaene, "Precisions sur la teneur et l'importance du senatus-consulte d'Octobre 51 av. J.C.," Les Utudes Classiques, 21 (1953): 19-27.

6

SENATUS

CONSUL ι Α

temple, a city, or an area of land; to retain or acquire possession of territory, buildings, harbors, or to collect revenues from them; to fortify or wall their city or land; to settle disputes between cities or corporate bodies; to conclude treaties of friendship and al­ liance; to obtain or have confirmed grants of privilegia and immunitates; and to enter complaints against various groups or people, such as the publicani. To attempt a full listing would be tedious. The texts will speak for themselves. The fact that the inscriptions are in Greek, for the most part, and are, therefore, trans­ lations from the Latin, does not detract from their value, for, as we shall see, they were official translations made directly from the originals on deposit in Rome. In addition they were not "literary" translations. On the contrary, the translators slavishly repro­ duced each word of the Latin, so that at times the Greek becomes intelligible only when the Latin idiom is uppermost in the mind. The value of the translations cannot easily be overestimated. The Latin copies that have survived, on the other hand, are not nearly so numerous or complete in the information they give us. 10 2. THE RED ACTION A N D DEPOSITING OF SENATUS

CONSULTA

D o w n to the first consulship of Caesar (59 B.C.) there may have been no scribae or librarii in the Senate to keep accurate records of meetings and the various matters dis­ cussed in them.11 Thus a small committee was formed immediately after each meeting to put into final form any senatus consultum that may have been passed. The committee contained a chairman, i.e., the relator, who was usually the presiding magistrate as well, and those members of the Senate who had supported the matter. They acted as wit­ nesses. On the basis of notes and memory they drew up the document. The number of such witnesses, who were always senators, was usually two or three, down to about the middle of the first century B.C., but there were sometimes as many as ten or more. 12 The official redaction itself was always in Latin and was sometimes completed in the meeting-place of the Senate or in the home of the relator, but in any case within a short time after the meeting.13 Each senatus consultum took a specific form, which was rigidly followed, and was com­ posed of four main sections: the prescript, the theme, the decree proper, and the mark of approval. 10 They can be found in Bruns-Gradenwitz, Fontes iuris Romani antiqui7 (Tubingen, 1909), chap. 5. In general see Stella Maranca, loc. cit.t who abo gives (pp. 520-49) a full list of those senatus consulta which are alluded to or mentioned in Latin inscriptions. 11 Willems, op. cit., pp. 204-6; Mommsen, Romisches Staatsrecht, IIP, 2, 1015-21; O'Brien Moore, op. cit., cols. 718-19 and 770-71 (acta senatus). 12 The number of witnesses named in the extant copies may be summarized here: Nos. 1 (4), 2 (2), 4 (at least 3), 5 (3), 7 (2), 9 0 ) , 10 (3), 15 (3, or 4 ?), 18 (2), 22 (3), 23 (3), 26 (b= 6, c=possibly 8 or 9), 27 (10), 29 (at least 10); Josephus Ant. 14. 10. 10 (11 witnesses); ibid., 13. 9. 2 (2); De Bacchanalibus (3). 13 Plutarch Mar. 4; Cicero In Cat. 3. 13. It could even be completed in the home of the relator: Cicero Ad Fam. 9. 15. 4. The S.C. de Asclepiade (No. 22) was passed on the eleventh day before the Kalends ofJune (1. 4) but was deposited in the aerarium before the first of June, as the notation in line 3 shows. Willems, op. cit., p. 207, goes too far in saying that the redaction always took place on the same day as the meeting. There is no proof.

7

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

The prescript gives the name and rank of the presiding magistrate (or magistrates) followed by the phrase senatum consuluit (TTJ συγκλήτω συν€βουλ€υσατό), the day and month of the meeting, the place, and the names of the witnesses introduced by the phrase scribendo adfuerunt (γραφομένω παρησαν). The theme announces the relatio in the form quod (name of relator) verba fecit de (or ut) (πζρΐ ών 6 Selva λόγους £ποϊησατο π€ρΙ (or όπως) ). It gives a resume of the events or motives that prompted the relator to lay the matter before the Senate, and there are sometimes several clauses to it in order to make the whole matter clear, as in Nos. 14, 15, 18, 22, 23, and 26. At the conclusion of the theme is found the phrase d(e) e(a) r(e) i(ta) c(ensuerunt) (περί τούτου του πράγματος οϋτως εδοξev), which actually serves to introduce the next section, the decree proper. The decree proper, in indirect discourse or introduced by ut {uti), is technically the advice given by the Senate to the magistrate who had brought forward the relatio for consideration. It had been obtained by a simple majority vote. If it included a remark or some kind of instruction to the magistrate, it was always softened by the traditional formula 51 ei (eis) videbitur or ita uti ei (eis) e republica fideve sua videatur. The Senate in strict theory did not issue orders. The mark of approval is the vote of the Senate formally expressed: c(ensuere) (Ιδο^ν). However it is not found in all decrees, a fact that may be attributed to the vagaries of a transcriber or stonecutter. In some cases it is found in the body of the decree proper, at the end of individual sentences.14 From our earliest extant decree (No. 1) to those of Augustan times this basic structure remained unaltered. Only under the Principate, which does not concern us here, were Serious modifications introduced.15 After the decree had been written up in the proper form, the relator had to deposit it in the state archives, the aerarium Saturni. This was a most important act, necessary for the validity of the decree, and it was usually performed as soon as possible after the writing. 16 At the aerarium it was received by the urban quaestor, who saw to it that it was entered into the public records. The technical phrase was in tabulas publicas referre (Plutarch Cato min. 17; josephus Ani. 14. 10. ic). Th':r. «/?« 'he original copy, and it was never permissible to take it from the building. None of the originals have survived. 14 Full discussion by Willems, op. cit., pp. 213-15. For the mark of approval within the body of the decree see Nos. 2, 7, 15, 16, and 18. Willems assumes that when it appears only once, at the end, it means that the Senate voted in only one discessio, while its repetition at the end of each article shows that the Senate voted separately for each of them. Again wc must say there is no proof. Valerius Maximus (2. 2. 7) explains it thus: veteribus senatus consultis C littera subscribi solebat eaque nota significabatur ilia tribunos quoque censuisse. He appears to have misunderstood it; cf. O'Brien Moore, op. cit., col. 803. Mommsen, Romisches Staatsrecht III3, 2,1009, n. 8, would substitute senatores for tribunos. 15

O'Brien Moore, op. cit., col. 803. That the deposit was necessary for validity can be seen by the decree quoted by Josephus (Ant. 14. 10. 10), for the whole purpose of passing the decree was to ensure the registration in the aerarium of a decision rendered by Julius Caesar in accordance with a senatorial decree. It is there stated that there was no time for it to be properly registered. Hence, clearly, registration of a state act was a legal necessity; cf. Suetonius Aug. 94 and Cicero In Cat. 1. 2. 4. 16

8

SENATUS CONSULT A

A second archive in Rome in which copies ofsenatus consulta were also on deposit was the Temple of Ceres, under the control of the aediles. Its exact relationship to the aerarium is not known, but it has been suggested that it was established in order to provide outside, i.e., plebeian, control over the quaestorian records. This sounds reasonable, for, despite many safeguards to guarantee accuracy of the texts of the senatus consulta, there was always the possibility of someone tampering with the records or even removing them at some future time. I7 Having an official copy on file in Rome as a check on the original would help to reduce such criminal acts. But since the Temple of Ceres was under plebeian control, its record office may have contained only those decrees which con­ cerned the plebs. At any rate this second archive ceased to function after n B.C., and the quaestors remained the sole keepers of the records.18 After the document had been received by the quaestors it was handed over to the scriba quaestorius, who then took care of the details of registration. The decree was apparently surrendered to the quaestors in the form of wooden tablets that were then kept together as a unit with other decrees in the order of arrival. It would appear that the scribae did not copy the decree into the records immediately, but rather retained the written form and the materials that the relator had deposited. The wooden tablets were given a file number for identification and were bound together with others into a codex. And each annual batch in turn was marked ofFinto monthly groups so that all the decrees registered in the space of one month would be bound together in the exact order of registration. They would be stored according to that system. At some time, however, it is possible that they may have been copied into libri (Cicero Ad Att. 13. 33). To find a particular decree one had to know the year in which it was passed, the month in which it was registered, and the tablet number. Our knowledge of these matters can be deduced largely from the decrees themselves, as we shall see later. Despite the lack of full knowledge of the details of registration, storing, and possible changes in procedure in the course of time, we can be sure that the wooden tablets themselves were registered and stored in the aerarium.19 The material in them may have been copied into libri at a later date. 17 Plutarch Cato min. 17; Cicero Ad Att. 4. 18. 12; ibid., 15. 2 6 . 1 ; Cicero Ad Fam. 12. 29. 2; Cicero De lege agraria 2. 14. 37. For the role of the aediles in safeguarding the texts see Livy 3. 55. 13 and the comments by Ogilvie, op. cit., p. 503. Zonaras (7. 5) is witness to the fact that the plebeian aediles exercised some amount of control over the acta of the people and die Senate, i.e., over the texts of those acta. It must be emphasized that in the Republic the official record office was always the aerarium under the direction of the urban quaestors. The records apparendy kept in the Temple of Ceres were official copies, not the originals. l8 D i o 54. 36. 1, where, however, he gives the mistaken impression that the tribunes and aediles alone had previously watched over the records. 19 Clearly, wooden tablets were still in use in A.D. 68, when a decree of L. Helvius Agrippa was registered. The beginning of it (I.L.S., 5947) is as follows: Descriptum et recognitum ex codice ansato L. Helvi Agrippae procons., quern protulit Cn. Egnatius \ Fuscus scriba quaestorius, in quo scrip turn fuit it, quod infra scriptum est, tabula VD VIII \ et Villi et X(ll. 2-4). Here the D (an obviously reversed C) is an abbreviation for ceris. Full commentary by Mommsen, Hermes, 2 (1867): 102-27 (Gesammelte Schriften, 5: 339ΓΤ. and 506). See also O'Brien Moore, op. cit cit., cob. 805-6".

9

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Whenever an official copy was requested, the scriba would locate it and make the copy. He would also indicate on the copy the location in the archives where the original could be found. At a later date, when the copy was published, e.g., in the Greek East where most of our copies have been found, this notation was sometimes engraved along with the decree. It was not a part of the decree at all, but merely served to vouch for the authenticity and accuracy of the copy. Those notations which surely must have been added in the aerarium are assembled here. No. 22, 1-3: Έπι ύπατων Κοίντου Λυτατίου Κοίντου υΐοΰ Κάτλου και Μάρκου Αίμ [ιλίου Κοίντον υίοΰ] \ Μάρκου υίωνοΰ /17Γδου, στρατηγού δε κατά ττόλιν και επι των ξένων Λευκίου Κορνήλιο [υ υίοΰ] | 27ισ€'ι>να, μηνός Μαίου. No. 29, 1-3: [Έπι Σεζτου Πομπηίου Σεζτου υίοΰ και Λευκίου Κορνιφικι\ου Λευκίου υίοΰ υπάτων εκ των άν(α)\γεγραμ\μενων εν πραγμάτων συμβεβουλευμένων κηρώμασιν π]εμπτω εκτω εβδόμω όγοόω ενάτω τα [μιευτι \ κών δελτων - - nomina quaestorum - - ταμι] ων κατά πολιν οελτω πρώτη. Josephus Ant. 14. ΙΟ. ΙΟ: Δόγμα συγκλήτου εκ τοΰ ταμιείου άντιγεγραμμενον εκ των δελτων των ταμιευτικών Κοίντω 'Ρουτιλίω Κοίντω ταμίαις κατά πόλιν δέλτα) δευτέρα κηρώματι πρώτω. At the end here the manuscripts have και εκ των πρώτων πρώτη, which Viereck, in his Sermo Graecus (p. 101), emended as given. L. Gallet (op. cit., pp. 255-64) thought that lines 1-3 of No. 22 were "une redaction purementprivee," and that they had been added by the three Greek naval officers for whom the decree had been passed. In his view the reference to the month of May does not allow us to form any conclusion about the system of filing or registering in the aerarium. It was on the basis of this text that Willems (op. cit., p. 218, n. 3) had concluded that the archival records were divided into monthly groups within each year for reference pur­ poses. Gallet disagreed, for he saw here a Greek and not a Roman notation. However, he failed to notice that the filiation used in these lines is in the Roman manner, not the Greek (simple genitive). The conclusion of Willems was correct. In addition to these notations we may suspect uthus whenever we find a dating by consuls at the beginning of a decree, as in No. 27, lines 3-5. The prescript to a decree did not begin with a consular dating. It began with the name of the relator followed by senatum consuluit. From these notations and other references it is possible to form some idea of the Roman filing system, but in the absence of full information it would be foolish to attempt a com­ plete description.20 20

For other passages that contain information see our No. 23, 57-59: iv τώι συμβουλίωι παρήσαν \ οι αύτοϊ οι εμ πραγμάτων συ μβεβουλευμένων δβλτωι πρώτηι, \ κηρώματι τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτωι. And in No. 12, 20, we find: Δελτος ν (δευτέρα) ν κ[ηρωμα - -]; cf. the decree of L. Helvius Agrippa (above, n. 19). One difficulty arises in the fact that δέλτος sometimes may mean codex (as in No. 23, 31) and at other times tabula (as, e.g., in No. 23, 58). Then κηρωμα (cera) becomes obscure when it is found in the same context with δελτος = tabula. Perhaps κηρωμα then means "column," especially if the tablets at times were bound chain-fashion, each one linked to the next in a long series. See T. Birt,

10

SENATUS

CONSULTA

3. THE PUBLICATION OF SENATUS

CONSULTA

The only extant copy of a senatorial decree which contains exact and detailed in­ structions for its publication is the S.C. de Bacchanalibus.21 Actually it appears to be a letter of the consuls of 186 B.C. to the Teurani informing them officially of the decree and directing them to publish it locally. The instructions (11. 22-30) are as follows: Hake utei in conventionid exdeicatis ne minus trinum \ noundinum, senatuosque sententiam utei scientes esetis,—eorum \ sententia itafuit: sei ques esent, quei arvorsum eadfecisent, quam suprad \ scriptum est, eeis rem caputalem faciendam censuere—atque utei \ hoce in taholam ahenam inceideretis, ita senatus aiquom censuit, \ uteique eamfigier ioubeatis, ubei facilumed gnoscier potisit; atque \ utei ea Bacanalia, sei qua sunt, exstrad quam sei quid ibei sacri est, \ ita utei suprad scriptum est, in diebus X, quibus vobeis tabelai datai I erunt, faciatis utei dismota sient.

No other senatorial decree offers a parallel to this, and it has been suggested that the instructions were given in this case because of the special problem of the Bacchic wor­ ship ; the Senate felt that it constituted a danger for the Italian communities and therefore took special measures to suppress it. 22 Publication was highly desirable. N o t only was the decree to be engraved on bronze and erected in a conspicuous place—one is re­ minded of the banal formulas of Greek epigraphy in this regard—but also it was to be read aloud on three successive market days before the assembled people (w conventionid). One unusual form of publication is seen in the fifth Augustan edict from Cyrene (No. 31), in which Augustus himself communicated a senatus consultum by means of the edict. And a special problem exists in the matter of the foedera concluded by R o m e with foreign states or cities. T w o copies of the treaties were made on bronze tablets in each instance, one of which was erected in Rome on the Capitol, the other in the foreign city. W e have the explicit statement of Suetonius (Vesp. 8. 5) that 3,000 Capitol bronze tablets had been destroyed by fire and that these consisted of senatus consulta, plebiscita de societate etfoedere

ac privilegio

cuicumque concessis.

B u t since senatus consulta were passed

for the execution of many of these treaties—the so-called senatorial treaties—and were published in the Greek East along with the treaties, the question arises as to whether the senatorial decrees of authorization were also published in bronze and set up on the Capitol in Rome. Some scholars have separated the decree from the treaty, e.g., in the case of the treaty with Astypalaea (No. 16), and have concluded that the publication in the Greek Kritik una Hermeneutik nebst Abriss des antiken Buchwesens (Munich, 1913), pp. 262-63. But Wenger, op. cit., p. 75, n. 10, suggests that it means one side of a wax tablet. He would translate the pertinent part of the decree of L. Helvius Agrippa thus: "Polyptychon (tabula i.d.S.) 5, Seite 8-10." The tabula would therefore be waxed on both sides, and in the present case very many of them would be tied together. From a consideration of all the examples it would appear that the terminology is not consistent. Some illustrations of tabulae bound together can be found in the Notitia Dignitatum, ed. O. Seeck (Berlin, 1876; reprinted 1962), or. XDC, and oc. XVII. 21

C.I.L., I 2 , 581. Latest text with notes by A. Degrassi, Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae, vol. 2 (Florence, 1963), no. 511, pp. 13-17. See also Riccobono, op. cit., no. 30, pp. 240-41, and Von Schwind, op. cit., pp. 59-61. 22 Von Schwind, loc. cit. This is made clear by Livy's account in bk. 39, sees. 8-18, especially sees. 15-16, in which the consul speaks to the people of its dangers.

11

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

city did not reflect exactly the form of publication in Rome. 2 3 They think the treaty alone saw publication in Rome, while the decree was merely deposited in the aerarium. The Greek city, having acquired copies of both the decree and the treaty, published both. The inclusion of senatus consulta in the statement of Suetonius might then refer only to those passed for the granting of privileges, e.g., to the S.C. de Asclepiade (No. 22). Such a view appears to be wrong. Silvio Accame, in my opinion, is right when he says that the authorizing decrees of the Senate were also erected on the Capitol along with the treaties. As proof he cites the text of the treaty with Pergamum, which clearly states that two tablets of bronze were placed in the Temple of Jupiter and that they contained the text of both the decree and the treaty.24 Here is proof for the publication of decrees of this type. None of them, however, have survived. The bronze tablet containing the text of the S.C. de Asclepiade (No. 22) would seem to indicate not only that it was an official publication by Rome but that other decrees of this nature, i.e., those which granted privileges, also were published regularly by Rome. This is not the case, however. No. 22, line 25 of the Greek, specifically gives the recipients of the decree permission to erect a bronze tablet. We may then assume that the recipients did so at their own expense; such an assumption is warranted by the fact that the last two lines of the inscription, containing their names, could not have been part of the decree itself and must have been added by them. The fact that Suetonius (Vesp. 8. 5., cited in part above) saw fit to include among those documents which had been destroyed in the fire senatorial decrees granting privileges to anyone leads one to believe that recipients of these decrees often did erect bronze tablets in Rome. Such decrees were publications, but they were not official Roman publications. Consequently we have no way of knowing whether, when such decrees were published in bronze and set up on the Capitol by the recipients, they always included both the original Latin text and the Greek translation. Likewise we have no way of knowing how many of these decrees were actually erected at private expense. But certainly they were not official Roman publications. From these examples it is reasonably ueai that seme ssxatti* ro*iα-] τηγός *Ρωμαίων, ΚΟ [ τοις rayο Γ?] και τη βουλή χαίρ[ζ(.ν πρά-] γματος καλώς γ[ινώσκω ? ] νμΐν €γώ σύγ [κλητον βδωκα ] τ€ Τρικκαί[ων ] προ ήμ€ρ [αν ν el ων ] €γ κομζ\τίω' γραφομένου παρήσαν ] μαρακ [ Σςξστί-] λι,ος [ ] Text by Robert. Viereck (notes) had recognized it as a senatus consultum. 8 Alternative spelling, γραφομένω.

48

9 SENATUS CONSULTUM DE NARTHACIENSIUM ET MELITAEENSIUM LITIBUS

ca. 140 B.C.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. B. LatichefF, B.C.H., 6 (1882): 356-87; P. Willems, Le Senat de la republique romaine, vol. 1 (Louvain, 1885), app., pp. 708-14; H. G. Lolling, Athen. Mitt., 10 (1885): 284-85; P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Gottingen, 1888), no. ΧΠ, pp. 16-19; E· Sonne, De arbitris externis, quos Graeci adhibuerunt ad lites et intestinas et peregrinas componendas, quaestiones epigraphicae (Diss., Gottingen, 1888), no. XXVIII, pp. i8ff.; E. De Ruggiero, L'arbitrate pubblico presso i Romani (Rome, 1893), pp. 2516°.; W . Dittenberger, S.I.G.2,1 (1898), 307; A. Wilhelm, Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1903, p. 795; O. Kern, I.G., EX, 2 (1908), 89; E. Taubler, Imperium Romanum, I (Leipzig, 1913), 122-23; Μ. Ν. Tod, International Arbitration Amongst the Greeks (Oxford, 1913), pp. 23-24, 129-30; F. Hiller von Gaertringen, in W . Dittenberger, S.I.G.3, Π (1917), 674; Abbott-Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton, 1926), no. 8, pp. 258-61; F. Stahlin, R.E., s.v. "Narthakion," cols. 1760-64; idemt Philologus, 88 (1933): 130-32; G. Daux, B.C.H., 57 (1933): 97; S. Accame, // dominio romano in Grecia dalla guena acaica ad Augusto (Rome, 1946), pp. 69-70, 217-24; Lewis-Reinhold, Roman Civilization, I (New York, 1951), no. 133, pp. 333-34; T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, Π (New York, 1952), 643; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 39.

DESCPJPTION. A grayish stone found near the Thessalian village of Limogardi, where ancient Narthacium must have been located. The inscription is engraved on two of its sides, the front face being crowned with a cornice and the other decorated in the Byzantine period by a semicircle. Height of the front face is 0.67 m., width 0.345 m · Height of the other side is 0.68 m., width 0.425 m. The engraving is carefully done, the letters measuring almost one centimeter in height. Omicron and omega have the same height as the other letters except that at die ends of lines omicron is sometimes smaller or elongated. The transverse bar of the alpha is sometimes straight, sometimes curved, and sometimes broken.

49

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Α

[-Στρατ] αγεοντος

των Θεσσαλών

[του Άγ]ησίππου

Λαρισαίου,

[rayeudv] των Κρίτωνος [του Φει] δίππου, 5

[γράφη

[λοΰ του]

ίο

[Γάϊος

Όσ]τίλιος

[τηγός

τ]ήι συγκλήτωι

υίός Μαγκΐνος

ΐ5

νν

εγ κομετίωΐ'

γράφο-

Αοτάτιος

Σεμπρώνιος

περί ων Θεσσαλοί

[fevo? Αυ] σάνδρου,

Ααμπρόμαχος

[πρεσβευ] ταΐ λόγους

εποιήσαντο,

[λοί κάγ]αθοί [κάγαθο]ΰ [φιλίαν 20

(Σ)τατιλιηνός

Γναΐος Αυλός

συμμάχου

υιό [ς]

Αϋλου

υίός

[εϊπασαν

δημοσίας

[δήμου τ]οΰ 'Ρωμαίων [εποιήσαντ]ο, [τήν γμα

,

χάριτα πεερήμου

εις τημ φιλίαν

νν παρεγένοντο,

περί τούτου αύτοΐς

[καθώς πρότερο]ν [ 30

επι Μηδείωι

[ματα κύρια δπω]ς

fj·

[τβιαι(?)

Θεσσαλών

τον παρόντα

ε]ν ταύτηι

[. . αμφοτέρων]

Μακε-

τε τά κ[ρί] του

πράγμα­

Ναρθακιεϋσιν κρίνη εμ Μ[ελι]

ττ}ι χωρά [ι

τών δήμων ε

35

[

Β

[- - " ] " ? [ · - Ι ^ ί " " KC*L wept ων [Ναρθακιεΐς Ν]ικάτας Τα[

]

[πιτρεπόντων]

] €*στιν ώι ρα[

, πρεσβε]

[πρόσωπον 40

και επι

περί τούτου

πρά­

ούτω

rjv, ταύτα

συνευδόκ] ησεν ήμΐν και

[όπως τον άγών]α

[

όπως

όπως τοΰτο το

]ων και επι τών περί Πύλλον αύτοΐς

χώ-

αδίκως

άποκατασταθ-fj

[So»ow κεκρι]υ.ενον τος

του

ήγ

του πράγματος

διάνοι] αν πρόσ(σ)χωσιν, άκερα]ιον

κα-

καλοϋ

[ραν Ναρθα] κιεΐς μετά ταύτα εαυτών 25

Άρμό-

ΙΊολίτα άνδρες

και περί χωρίου

? ] , μεθ* ής χώρας

Φα-

Μελιταιεΐς

σ] ιγζ/xa^iW τε άνενεώσαντο,

[ρί χώρας]

Κοΐντου

Γναίου

και φίλοι παρά δήμου

καΐ φίλου

στραπρο

[μενωι π] αρήσαν Κόϊντος [*Α. . . ,ήν]ση,

νν

συνεβουλεύσατο

[··■* νω]νών Κοϊντιλίων

[λερνα.]

Θεσσα-

Φεραίου,

Αϋλου

άν [ε] -

υπό συγκλ [ή] -

των Θεσσαλών

Θρασυμήδεος

[υίός Κορ] νηλία,

Πολυκλεος

του Άγελάου,

το γενόμενον

[του επι σ] τρατηγοΰ

[ς]

Ναρθακίω[ι]

του * Αμεινία,

Γλαυκετα

το] δόγμα

Αεοντο

iv δε

] Θεσσαλοί] ]

υται λόγο [υς] επ [οι^σαντο κ α τ ά ]

εν τηι]

συγκλήτ

[ωι άνδρες

κάλοι]

[ x a y a ] Θοί και φίλοι παρά δήμου κα [λοΰ κά] [γαθοΰ κα] ι φίλ [ου συμμάχου

50

τε ημετέρου

χά] -

SENATUS CONSULTA

[pLTCC φιλ] ίαν συ [μ] μα [χίοιν τε άνβνεώσαντο και] [περί των πραγ]μάτω[ν των καθ* αυτούς διελε] [yji^cav περί χώρας [/cat] t[e]p[cuv περί τη]ς τε 45

50

55

6ο

65

70

^Φ[ΐ)]Ρηΐ[Η'^νΎ]ς] τ[νς / c a T " MeAtr] a r e a s ' αρχής Ναρθακιε[ω]ν [των] iv τ[ή * Αχαι]ία[ικαι γαρ] μετά τ α ^ τ η ? ] τ [ή] ς χώρας ζίς την [φ] tAta [ν] τ [ου δη] μου [τοΰ *Ρω] [μ]αίω[ν] Ναρθακιεΐς παραγ[εγονεν]at [κ]at Trepl της χώρας /cat των ιερών κριτηρίοις [νεν] ικηκ [ε] vat κατά νόμους τους Θεσσαλών, οΐς [νό] μοις εως τα [ν] ΰν χρών [τ] at, ους νόμους Τίτος Κοιγκτιος ύπατος από της των δέκα πρεσ­ βευτών γνώμης εδωκεν, /cat κατά δόγμα συγκλήτου, περί τε τούτων των πραγμά[τω] ν ετει άνώτερον τρίτω επι τριών δικασ[τη]ρίων νενικηκεναι, επί Σαμίων, Κολο[φ]ων[ι] [ων,] Μαγνητών, κεκ [ρι] μένα είναι κατά νόμου [ς], όπως ταύτα κύρια η ούτως, καθώς και aAAots γεγονός εστίν περί τούτου τοΰ πράγματος ούτως εδοζεν χάριτα φιλίαν συμμαχίαν [ά] νανεώσασ^αι τούτοις τε φιλανθρώπως άποκριθήναι, άνδρας καλούς κάγαθούς προσαγορεΰσαι, όσα κεκριμενα εστίν κατά νόμους ους Τίτος Κοιγκτιος ύπατος εδωκεν, ταΰτα, καθώς κεκριμενα εστίν, ούτω δοκεΐ κύρια βίναι δεΐν τούτο τε μη ευχερές είναι, όσα κατά νόμους κε­ κριμενα εστίν άκυρα ποιεΐν. ζενιά τε εκατεροις Γάϊος Όστίλιος στρατηγός τον ταμίαν δούναι κε[Χ\εύση από σηστερτίων νόμων εκατόν είκοσι [π€]ντ€ εις εκάστην πρεσβείαν, ούτω καθώς αν [αύτώι εκ] των δημοσίων πραγμάτων πίστε­ ι ς τε της] t8tas φαίνηταΐ' εδοζεν. w

Text based upon those of LatichefF and Viereck, except where noted. 3 [ταγευόν]των, Stahlin and Accame; [άρχόν]των, others. 4 Φει]δίππου, Lolling; Κυ]δίππου LatichefF. 11 The first sigma of-Γτατιλι^νο? was omitted by the engraver. 13 *Αρνην]ση or Άνιήν]ση. ι8 Viereck added τε. 21 [ειπασαν], Wilamowitz, but Kern seems to see Υ before μεθ* ης. If Υ is right, there may have been another noun or adjective in the genitive in this place. Viereck, however, feels the need of a verb at this point (notes). 22 The engraver seems to have inscribed ΡΩΜΑΙΩΝΩΝ and to have erased the second ΩΝ (Kern). 26 Άκέραι t]ovy Kern. 28 LatichefF transcribed part of a mutilated omega followed by a clear nu at the very beginning of the line, likewise Kern. Viereck rightly indicates (Sermo Graecus, and notes) that one expects here the name of some Thessalian city that had formerly rendered a decision about die land in question. 30 οπω]ς rjt Kern; αύτοΐ]ς 77, others. 32 εμ Μ [ελιτείαι ?, Kern. 33 ταύτηι: it is uncertain whether the iota is on the stone, for the space

51

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

there is badly worn. 34 £[πιτρ€πόντων], Dittenberger. 35 pa, stone; [φ]α, Kern. 36 stone. 43-46 restored by Dittenberger and Viereck (notes).

IHIIINHIII

Here we have a familiar scene: envoys from two Greek cities in Rome asking the Senate to act as arbitrator in their dispute about a piece of land. Although the Senate could, and usually did, appoint a third city as the arbitrator, in this instance it hands down the decision itself. Two envoys from Melitaea in Thessaly claim that the Narthacians had unjustly seized control of "public land and a deserted area" which had belonged to Melitaea when that city became a friend of the Roman people. They cite previous arbitral awards in their city's favor and request the Senate to restore the land to its previous status. The envoys from Narthacium state that their city had possessed the land with its sanctuaries when it became a friend of the Roman people and add that it had received favorable judgments in previous cases of arbitration concerning this same land "in accordance with Thessalian laws which they enjoy up to the present moment and which the consul Titus Quinctius had granted them on the advice of the ten legati, approved by a decree of the Senate." Then they cite, in particular, a decision concerning the land, won by Narthacium before a composite tribunal whose members came from Samos, Colophon, and Magnesia.1 The Senate then passed the present decree in favor of Narthacium. Since the presiding magistrate, C. Hostilius Mancinus, had been consul in 137 B.C., his praetorship may be dated in 140 B.C. at the latest, under the Lex Villia.2 The early editors of this decree (LatichefF, Viereck, Kern, Hiller, and Abbott-Johnson) believed that it must have been passed prior to 146 B.C., for they saw that in it Thessaly is free and not subjected tc the authority of the Macedonian governor. Objections to such a date for the decree were first advanced by Daux, Stahlin, and Accame. It was shown in great detail by Accame that after 146 B.C. all of Greece was divided into two parts, one connected with the pro^i.nre of Macedonia, the other independent.3 There is therefore no valid objection to a date after 146 B.C. for the decree. And since it has been shown that the Thessalian officials, whose names are given in the decree, held office toward 140 B.C., it was very probably in that year that Hostilius was praetor and presided over the Senate.4 Thessaly belonged to that group of Greek states which retained independence after the Achaean War, and no changes were made in the arrangements agreed upon by T. Quinctius Flamininus. 1 Tod's interpretation of the phrase eVt τριών δικασ[τη]ρίων appears to be the correct one and it is here accepted. 2 Broughton, op. cit., I, 480, and II, 643. 3 Op. cit., pp. 1-15. 4 On the Thessalian officials see F. Stahlin, "Zur thessalischen Strategenliste," Philologus, 88 (1933): 130-32.

52

SENATUS

CONSULTA

The city of Narthacium, situated in Achaea Phthiotis and protected by strong walls with a series of towers, falls outside the mainstream of Greek history until Hellenistic times. The nearby mountain of the same name is mentioned by Xenophon (Hell. 4. 3. 8; Agesilaus 2. 2) in connection with the expedition of Agesilaus in 394 B.C., but the city itself apparently remained undisturbed. Only a few inscriptions and the present document tell us of the city's history. To the north of Narthacium lay Melitaea, separated from it by a ridge of mountains, a city that already in the fourth century had acquired a reputation as a secure fortress. Near the end of the third century it appears, on the evidence of inscriptions, to have been favored by the Aetolians at the height of their power. In the second century, after the humiliation of the Aetolians at the hands of Rome, Melitaea was part of Thessaly and, later, of Phthiotis. The border between the two cities must have been somewhere in the mountains, and the area over which the dispute arose was very likely some choice mountain pastureland.

53

ΙΟ SENATUS CONSULTA DE PRIENENSIUM ET SAMIORUM LITIBUS

A: before 135 B.C. B : 135 B.C.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. R. Chandler, Inscriptionum Syllabus, p. VII, F 6 and G; A. Boeckh, C.I.G., Π (1843), 2905, F 6 and G 7; Le Bas-Waddington, Voyage archeologique en Grece et en Asie Mineure: Inscriptions, ΠΙ (1870), nos. 195-99'» E· L· Hicks, The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, III (1882), nos. CCCCIV-CCCCV; P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Gottingen, 1888), nos. XIII-XIV, pp. 19-22; E. Sonne, De Arbitris externis, quos Graeci adhibuerunt ad lites et intestinas et peregrinas componendas, quaestiones epigraphicae (Diss., Gottingen, 1888), nos. XIX-XX, pp. 13-14; W . Dittenberger, S.I.G.2,1 (1898), 315; F. Hiller von Gaertringen, Die Inschriften von Priene (Berlin, 1906), nos. 41-42; Μ. Ν . Tod, International Arbitration Amongst the Greeks (Oxford, 1913), nos. LXIII-LXIV, pp. 42-43; F. Hiller von Gaertringen, in W . Dittenberger, S.I.G.*, II (1917), 688 (B only); D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), I 114, and II, 965, n. 84; F. Ceruti, Epigraphica, 17 (1955): 138; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 41 a. DESCRIPTION. A long series of documents had originally been inscribed on the north anta and the north cella wall of the Temple of Athena Polias in Priene to record those events which had been of importance to the city. These included, among others, the dedication of the temple itself in 334 B.C. by Alexander (Hiller, Inschriften von Priene, no. 156 [ = M. N. Tod, Greek Historical Inscriptions, II, 184]); an edict of Alexander (ibid., no. 1 [ = Tod, op. cit., II, 185]); a decree of the city granting divine honors to King Lysimachus (ibid., no. 14 [—Q.G./-S.. TT])· the answer of Lysimachus to Priene (ibid., no. 15 [ = C . B. Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period (iNew Haven, I0 34-)t no. 6]); the celebrated record of the RJiodian arbitral tribunal concerning a dispute between Samos and Priene (ibid., no. 37); the Senatus Consultum de Prienensibus et Ariarathe (ibid., no. 39 [ = N o . 6 of the present volume]); and the present two senatus consulta (ibid., nos. 40-41). Our two decrees were immediately to the right of Inschriften von Priene no. 37, near the bottom of the cella wall. They are now in the British Museum. A (Inschriften von Priene no. 40): a wall stone of bluish marble, complete at bottom and right side with enough of the top preserved to assure the dimensions. Height: 0.50 m. Width: 0.59 m. Height of letters: 0.015 m. The stone contains lines 1-10 only of A, for line 11 is found on the upper edge of the stone containing B. Hicks (op. cit., no. CCCCV, p. 20) assumed that this single line might indicate the existence of still another senatorial decree between A and B, line 11 forming its conclusion. Hiller, however, felt that the stone containing A rested directly upon the one containing line 11 and B, and

54

SENATUS

CONSULTA

therefore considered line 11 as the concluding line of A. An uninscribed space of one line separates line n from the beginning of B . Β (Inschriften von Priene no. 41): four fragments of wall stones of bluish marble. T h e early copy of Le Bas is here very valuable, for the stones were badly damaged before reaching the British Museum. His readings allow us to form a fuller and more accurate picture of the central portion of lines 6-14. Fragment (1): contains approximately the first third of the beginnings of lines 1-6, the text itself being inscribed on the right side of the same stone that carries Inschriften von Priene no. 37 y. The measurement of this fragment, like that of the other three, is given by Hicks. Height: 10J inches ( = ca. 0.27 m.). W i d t h : $6\ inches (=ca. 1.435 m.). Fragment (2): contains about the last two-thirds of the ends of lines 1-7. Height: 10J inches ( = ca. 0.27 m.). W i d t h : 38-J- inches ( = ca. 0.977 m ·)· Fragment (3): found on the same stone as Inschriften von Priene no. 37 z, but on the right side of the stone. It contains the first eleven or twelve letters of the beginnings of lines 8-14. Height: 20 inches (=ca. 0.50 m.). W i d t h : 34 inches ( = ca. 0.864 m.). Fragment (4): contains the ends of lines 8-13. Height: 9 inches ( = ca. 0.228 m.). Width: 13J inches ( = ca. 0.349 m.).

[-

€σ]τιν

[άποσταλ€ντ€ς

παρά Πριηνέων

και ττ€ρ\ι ών οι]

πρ€σβ€υταί

άνδρ€ς καΧοι και] αγαθοί

και

φίλοι

πα[ρά δήμου] [καΧοΰ και αγαθού

και φίΧον Χόγους Ιποιησαντο

συμμαχί]

αν τ€

άν€ν€ώσαντο,

[καϊ 7Γ€-] [ρι της χώρας,

ην Χ4γουσιν

ίαυτών

yeveaflai πριν £ΧηΧυ] 0€ναι €ΐς €Κ€ΐνην χώραν

[Χιον και τους 84κα πρ€σβ€υτάς,

όπως ταυτην Κ€κριμ€να

[π€ρι ταύτης

της χώρας,

την

Μ [αν-] €χ]ωσιν

και οσα

κριτήρια

€ΐσ[ί]

δπως ταύτα π ά ν τ α άναν]^ωθη

και φιΧανθρώπως

{τβ} αύτοΐς

απόκρι­ ση'

€δοξ€ν

και οσα ΙΊριην€Ϊς

Χέγουσιν

€πι τ ο ] σ α υ τ α €τη κατίχζΐν

€Κ€ΐνης της

χώρα?, [περί τούτων

ούτω,

καθώς και *Ρόδιοι κ] e [κ]ρίκασιν,

ούτως δοκ€Ϊ etvcu·

el 8e τι

βστιν [εναντίον

ών ώρισμίνα

υπό *Αντι]γόνου

εστίν, ούτως φαίνεται δβιν elvai'

ξ£νιά

τ€ αύ[τοΐς άποστ€ΐΧαι

τον τα/χιαν Ζως από νό]μων καθ*

[πρ€σβ€ΐαν],

σηστ€ρτίων

καθώς αν αύτώι £κ τ [ών δημοσίων φ] αίνη [τ] αι ·

Δόγμα

το κομισθζν

παρά της συ[γκΧητου

πρ€σβ€υτών Σέρουιος

ΦόΧουιος

Κοίντου

Ιγ κομ€τίωι

55

ύπερ των προς προ

€ΐκοσι

π4ντ€

πραγμάτων

βέλτιστα

(?)

ξδοξ€ [ν].

*Ρωμαίων

υπό τ]ών

άποσταΧΙντων

(2)

Σαμίους'

υιός στ[ρατηγός ήμ€-

ίκατόν

ίκάστην

ύ]πατος

τήι συκΧητωι

συν€βουΧ€υσατο

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

ρών rrcvre ζίδυιών

Φζβροαρίων.

Καμελλία, Καμζλλία,

γραφομ[Ινωι

Γάιος "Αννιος

παρ\ησαν

ν AevKLos "Αννιος ACVKLOV Πο[λλία. Τηλέμαχος

Μάτρωνος,

άνδρ€ς κα [λοί κ] at αγαθοί συμμάχου κατά πρό[σ]ωπον

Λζων ν λόγους

προς Πριην[€]ΐς Μάνλιος

[/xera τον προς *Αντίοχον

π]€ρί

π[ζρί

χ\ώρας

λόγους

πόλ€μον

Άρ[τ€μωρος

€κατ€ρων

0€λόν[τ]ων Ζδοξζν

ά]νδρ€ς

0€Ϊναι ά 6 δήμος

καλοί τ€

ό 'Ροδίων

αγαθοί

Ιμμζίνωσιν

τ[ούτ\ωι τούτοις

από σηστ€ρτίων ταμίαν καθώς αν αύτώι

π€ρί τούτου

τ€ τώι κρίματι

€κ [τ]ών

^atV^rat].

€ΐκοσι

κα]λοΰ

(4)

πρζσβζίαν [ΣΙρουιος /cat

πραγμάτων

ορίων,

άποκρι]θήναι

ούτως

μ€τα-

κέκρι[κε τοΐς

κ]αί όρ[ισμόν]

π€ποίηται,

όρίοις]

και του [rots* τοΐς όρίοις €μμεν€ΐ]ν

κ€ [λ€υσάτω δημοσίων

πρςσβζυται

[ς] π€ρί χώρας /cat π€ρί

/cat τού[τοις

re ξένιον €ΐς Ικάστην άποστεΐλαι

καθώς

'Ροδίων

του πράγματο[ς

θ^λόντων

τώι κρίματι

νόμων ίκατόν

φίλου

Stcraf αι>

/cat φίλοι, π [αρά δήμου

{eti>at} Ιστιν

Ικατίρων

τούτωι

και

[ημετέρου]

ήμΐν ουκ €υχ[€ρ]4ς

του μ[ή]

πρ^σβ^υταί

],

ώ ] σ ι ν , καθώς ό δήμος ό

e/cptvev

καΐ άγαθοΰ

/cat π€ρΙ ων Πριηνζΐς

Ιποήσα [ντο κατ] ά πρόσω [πον πρ\ 6ς Σαμίου όπως οΰτω[ς

ων Σάμιοι

[/cat ορίων, όπως ώσιν\,

/cat οί δ4κα πρ^σβ^υταί

/cat a y [ a # o u ] συμμάχου

Γναίου

Ιποήσαντο

]ρου, ν ^ 4 v a [ f ] t [ [Ζ] ηνόδοτος

Τρ€μήλιος

Αεοντος,

και φίλοι παρά δήμο [υ καλοΰ]

τ€ ημετέρου

Γναΐο{ι}ς

Λζύκιος

Γαίου

Ιίδοζζν

ίως Φ ] ό λ [ ο ] υ ι ο ? Κοίντου

ύπατος

τον

πραξάτω], [και της ίδια? majTcJajs 1

εδοξ^ν.

A Text with restorations as given by Hiller in his Die Inschrifien von Priene, but in lines 1-3 and 10 Hicks had already given the restoration, suggesting, however, άφικόμενοι instead of άποσταλέντζς in line 2. Viereck originally had π€ρ[ί ών Σά\μιοι] in lines 1-2, which he later abandoned (notes). Β 4 After ΚαμεΧλία space for a single letter is uninscribed. Similar spaces are seen in lines 5 AiiJ 7. 8 [Ζ]ηι>όδοτος, brackets omitted in S.I.G.3; * Αρ[ιστάρχου, Le Bas-Waddington, Hiller, but corrected by Viereck; for the name see Die Inschrifien von Priene, no. 60,1.10! 10 {elvai} is iht stone-cutter's own error. 11 του μ[ή: The scribe seems to have confused two constructions, του μη. . . €μμ4ν€ΐν and Ινα μη €μμ€ΐνωσιν (Viereck, notes).

O n t h e m a i n l a n d opposite S a m o s lies t h e rich p l a i n o f Anaea.

T h e o w n e r s h i p of the

s o u t h e r n p a r t o f this land, called Batinetis, w a s a long-standing controversial issue b e t w e e n S a m o s a n d Priene.

T h e b e g i n n i n g s o f t h e c o n t r o v e r s y m a y b e f o u n d as far

back as a b o u t 700 B.C., w h e n the city o f Melia, l o c a t e d in that area, w a s d e s t r o y e d b y a c o m b i n a t i o n o f enemies a n d its s u r r o u n d i n g t e r r i t o r y divided a m o n g its n e i g h b o r s . 1 1 The two most important documents for the history of the quarrels between Samos and Priene are Hiller's Inschrifien von Priene, no. 37, the first forty-four lines of which are to be found in S.I.G.3, 599, and Inschrifien von Priene, no. 500 ( = O.G.I.S., 13 = Welles, op. cit., no. 7). The first of these is a

$6

SENATUS CONSULTA

Samians and Prieneans promptly moved in and took possession. When the arrange­ ments then made between them for the division of the land were interrupted by the Cimmerian invasion under Lygdamis in the third quarter of the seventh century, all the Samians and Prieneans living there were forced to leave. After the departure of Lygdamis some years later, the Prieneans and a limited number of the Samians returned to Batinetis, the Prieneans apparendy in the majority.2 Relations between the two cities later in the early sixth century became so strained that a war of seven years' duration was fought. At the conclusion of hostilities a peace treaty was drawn up which appears to have left Priene in possession of much if not all of the land.3 After a lapse of three centuries, during which time we know nothing of the situation, we learn that King Lysimachus in 283/82 B.C. arbitrated a dispute between the cities concerning the very same piece of land. He awarded the victory to Samos.4 About a century later (ca. 196-192 B.C.) we find the Rhodians in the role of arbitrator in still another quarrel between them, this time over the possession of the fortress Carium and the surrounding area of Dryoussa. This fortress apparently was located southwest of Batinetis and had been a part of the disputed territory from the very earliest times. The Rhodian tri­ bunal awarded the victory to Priene.5 The southern plain of Anaea therefore had been the principal cause of friction between Samos and Priene for five centuries before the Romans interfered in Greek politics. The present documents, both of them decrees of the Roman Senate, may be said to have brought a more lasting solution to the problem of the possession and boundaries of the Batinetis and adjoining regions. Both of them are here grouped together, for there has been some question about the exact relationship of one to the other. Are they separate parts of the same decree, or do they represent two separate documents ? After a careful consideration of the previous theories Hiller concluded that they were two decrees and that A preceded Β in time.6 The fact that line 11 of A rests upon the same block that contains the first six lines of Β is not, however, conclusive proof that A was immediately followed by B, for line 11 might have belonged to some other decree now lost. But Hiller felt that they went together. Clearly both of them are concerned with the question of land, and it is here believed that they are indeed two separate decrees. long inscription of some 170 lines dating from about 196-192 B.C. and records in detail the dispute between Samos and Priene as argued before a Rhodian tribunal. The second is a letter of King Lysimachus to Samos in which that city's possession of the Batinetis is confirmed. The commentaries of Hiller and Welles are very valuable, but the following works should also be consulted: Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Sitzungsberichte der Koniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, 1906, pp. 4iff. ( = Kleine Schriften, V, 1, pp. I28ff.); Th. Lenschau, Klio, 36 (1944): 227fF.; Magie, op. cit., pp. 892-93, n. 99. There is a good summary in Tod, op. cit., pp. 135-40. 2 Welles, op. cit., no. 7, 11. 14-20. 3 For this war see Plutarch 295 F-296 B. 4 Welles, op. cit., no. 7. 5 Hiller, op. cit., no. 37; see p . VI for location of Carium. 6 Ibid., no. 40, p. 46.

57

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

A. It appears reasonable to assume that the date of this decree is prior to that of B, perhaps even in the immediately preceding year. And if the restorations are correct, or even approximately correct, the subject matter must have concerned the effect that the Treaty at Apamea had upon the question of Priene's territorial possessions. It would not be rash to suggest that the possession of the Batinetis or the nearby fortress of Carium was at stake, but some other tract of land cannot be excluded. There is the possibility that this decree resulted from an early attempt on the part of Priene to obtain a senatorial ruling on the justice of the territorial arrangement of the Batinetis as made by Manlius and the Ten Commissioners in 188 B.C. Since the second decree (B) invalidates the arrangement made by Manlius, the first may have been an earlier step in this direction. The fragmentary nature of A, however, makes any positive statement about it virtually impossible. B. The mention of the consul Servius Fulvius Q. f. (Flaccus) dates this decree in 135 B.C.7 Here again we find Samians and Prieneans at odds over the possession of the same land that had been the origin of their quarrels over five hundred years before. Samians request the Senate to respect and uphold the arrangement of land made by Manlius and his commissioners, and Prieneans ask the Senate to uphold the decision of the Rhodian tribunal (ca. 196-192 B.C.). The Senate rules that it cannot very well change the dis­ positions previously made by RJiodes and that the Prienean claim is to be upheld. From this simple fact it becomes clear that the territorial concessions made at Apamea by Manlius with respect to Samos and Priene were in conflict with the Riiodian decision. Bribery has been suggested as the reason which prompted Manlius to favor the Samians at Apamea.8 Since the main result of the PJiodian arbitration was the awarding of Carium and Dryoussa to Priene, the present decree guaranteed Prienean possession of that area. 7

Broughton, Magistrates, I, 488-89. See note 5 in S.I.G.3, 688, where reference is made to Polybius 21. 35.4 and Livy 38. 42. 11 in order to show that Manlius was quite willing to accept money in return for Roman favors. His con­ duct in rbf Galatian campaign (Livy 38. 12-25) could also be cited to prove his venality.

8

s>

11 SENATUS CONSULTUM POPILLIANUM DE PERGAMENIS

Latter part of 133 B.C.?

[Squeeze]

BIBLIOGRAPHY. A. Conze and C. Schuchhardt, Athen. Mitt., 24 (1899), no. 61, pp. 190-97, with supplements by Wilamowitz and Mommsen (cf. Gesammelte Schriften, 4: 63-68); R. Cagnat and M. Besnier, Revue archeol, Troisieme serie, 35 (1899), no. 200, p. 509; P. Foucart, "Formation de la Province Romaine d'Asie," in Memoires de I'Academie des Inscriptions et BellesLettres, 37 (1904): 313; W. Dittenberger, O.G.I.S., II (1905), 435; G. Lafaye, I.G.R.R., 4 (1927): 301; H. Last, C.A.H., IX (1932), 103; T. R. S. Broughton, "Roman Asia," in T. Frank, An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, IV (Baltimore, 1938), 508; M. Segre, Athenaeum, 16 (1938): i23fF.; M. I. RostovtzefF, S.E.H.H.W., 11(1941), 811 (with n. 83 on p. 1524); G. I. Luzzatto, Epigrafia giuridica greca e romana (Milan, 1942), chap. 5, pp. 111-43; E. V. Hansen, The Attalids ofPergamum (Cornell, 1947), pp. 141-42; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), I, 33, and Π, 1033-34, n. 1; Lewis-Reinhold, Roman Civilization, I (New York, 1951), 321-22; T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, I (New York, 1951), 496-97, n. 1; G. Tibiletti, "Rome and the Ager Publicus: the Acta of 129 B.C.," J.R.S., 47 (1957): 137, n. 17; J. Vogt, Atti del terzo congresso internazionale di epigrafia greca e latina (Rome, 1959), pp. 45-54; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 42; A. H.J. Greenidge and A. M. Clay, Sources For Roman History 133-70 B.C., 3d ed. by E. W. Gray (Oxford, i960; corrected reprint, 1961), p. 12.

DESCRIPTION. The stone is white marble, broken on all sides. Height: 0.28 m. Width: 0.21 m. Height of letters in lines 3-21: 0.006 m. Height of letters in line 2 and apparently also in line 1: 0.013 m. The lettering is very beautifully and carefully executed, with apices used throughout.

59

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

[

Μ------

]

Συνκλ[ήτου [Γ]άιος

Ποπίλλιος

Γαίου

[τ]ωι συνφουλεύσατο 5

[. . .]€μβρίων

περί ων λόγους

[ ω ] ? της * Αττάλου

[λεΐς] 15

εδωρήθη

"Ατταλος

εζημίωσαν έγένετο

οΰτ[ως

[*Αττ] αλον τελεντησαι,

νν [Γραμ]μάτων

τος [Πο]πλίου

[...·]ν«[

'-

ε-]

[ημέρας

]

βασι-] έδωρησαν] πριν η]

[οι μη κινώσι

[^TJ/C(?)]T7V, άλλα έώσι κύρια μένειν,

περί]

ούτως έδοξε·

η [άφηκαν

πορευόμεν

ηι]

λόγους

όπως τ α υ τ [ α κύρια ήι

[γο] Ι τ€ οι εις Άσίαν

20

έ·]

έδοζε·

οι τ€ λο[ιποι

προ μιας

Περγα-]

εις]

[βασιλέων]

Γαίου υ Ιός στρατη[γός

όσα βασιλζύς διώρθωσαν

τοΐς

αφέθη έζημιώ [θη όπως ταύτα ττ\ι συνκλητωι

Ποπίλλιος

[το, ο] σα τούτων

rrepl των έν

ο [σα iv ^Ασίαι

υπό των

[ποι-τ^σα-το, π€ρϊ τούτου του πράγματο[ς [όπ]ως

συγκλή-] ]

€7Γ[Ο«7

στρατηγοΐς, τελευτης

[#cu]/>ta, υπέρ τούτου [ων Γ]άιος

τηι

τίνες ivroX [at έσονται

[\*4]σι'αι/ πορευομένοις [δι] ωρθώθη

υιός σ[τρατηγός

προ ημερών

[μ] ωι( ?) πραγμάτων,

ίο

δόγμα]

στρατη-] την δια-]

[άπαντα καθώς ή

σύνκλη-]

έπέκριν[ενϊ]

Σ€ρουιλ[ίου

]

]

ι The bottom of the sigma and the lower ends of the next letter (l/) appear to be in letters larger than those of lines 3-21, but absolute certainty is not possible. Presumably this is the last line of a document quite different from the present decree. 2 In large letters: 0.013 m · 5-6 ένΠεργάμ]ωι, Wilhelm, but restoration is not positive. 7-8 ό[σα iv *Ασίαι μέχρι]ς Conze-Schuchhardt; εω]ς, Dittenberger. 9 αφέθη, stone-cutter's error? άφείθη, Viereck (notes). 9-10 πότερον $ κύ]ρια Conze-Schuchhardt. 147) [άφηκαν, Conze-Schuchhardt; η [φίεσαν, conjecture of Dittenberger. 17 μηδέν κινώσιν, Conze-Schuchhardt; μηδέν κινώσι μάτ]ην, Dittenberger; μη κινώσι τηνδιαθηκ\ην, Foucart, followed by Viereck (notes). 18 πλην όσα η σύνκλητος, Conze-Schuchhardt. 19 Since there ?? ™ empty space at the beginning of this line, it has been assumed (Dittenberger, Viereck) that the text of the decree ends in this line. 20 This is probably the beginning of a new document. All previous editors record only Ποπ]λίου, but the horizontal bar and the vertical hasta of the pi appear plainly on the Berlin squeeze. W i t h γραμ]μάτων one expects to find the word αντίγραφαν (Dittenberger and Viereck). 21 Viereck (notes) reads YTEY, and on the squeeze it is possible to detect one upper bar of the upsilon, but the trace is too minute to be positive. For P. Servilius Isauricus see his letter to the Pergamenes (No. 55).

COMMENTARY.

W h e n Attalus III died in 133 B.C. he b e q u e a t h e d the P e r g a m e n e

k i n g d o m t o R o m e , w i t h the stipulation that the city of P e r g a m u m a n d its civic t e r r i t o r y w e r e t o be free. l

It has been s u g g e s t e d that the motives for his a c t i o n m a y be f o u n d in

the social a n d e c o n o m i c c o n d i t i o n s w h i c h prevailed in the P e r g a m e n e k i n g d o m at the 1 For conditions in the Pergamene kingdom during the reign of Attalus III see Rostovtzeff, op. cit., pp. 806-11; Hansen, op. cit., pp. 134-42; Magie, op. cit., I, 30-33 and II, 1033-37, nn. 1-8.

6o

SENATUS

CONSULTA

time. 2 Although the bourgeoisie of Pergamum, like that of Asia in general, enjoyed prosperity and security, the working classes were poor and discontented. The whole kingdom may have been hovering on the brink of a social upheaval At any rate, Attalus left the kingdom to Rome. Very soon after his death Aristonicus, the ille­ gitimate son of Eumenes, disputed the will and began to gather support for a revolt. The resulting war continued until 129 B.C., when a Roman army under Manius Aquillius succeeded in restoring peace. The province of Asia was then formed. The present senatorial decree was passed sometime between 133 and 129 B.C., and in the latter part of one of those years, but the exact year is unknown. If we knew when C. Popillius C. f. was praetor, we could date it very precisely, but unfortunately he is otherwise unknown. The traditional view of scholars has been that the date is 133, immediately after Rome learned of the bequest and before any news of the revolt started by Aristonicus had reached the Senate,3 but Magie has challenged this on the ground that a praetor could convene the Senate only when both consuls were absent from Rome. 4 Since he did not believe that both consuls had been absent in 133, he favored the year 129 when such was the case. And since Aristonicus is not mentioned in the decree, Magie felt obligated to account for this omission and explained it by the fact that by late 129 the war was already over and there was no longer any need to mention him or the war. Broughton, however, rejects this view and champions the older theory that the date is 133, reminding us that one of the consuls for that year, L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi, was in Sicily and the other, P. Mucius Scaevola, might have left Rome for some unknown reason late in the same year.5 Support for this older date, he believes, may be found in the relation between this decree and the Senatus Consultum de Agro Pergameno (No. 12). He argues that the latter decree, which concerns land disputes brought about by the formation of the new province, was probably passed in 129 and that such disputes could hardly have arisen before the general principles of governing the whole province had been stated. Hence the present decree must have preceded it. It would appear therefore that the date of 133 B.C. is indeed the correct one, but it cannot be stated positively. The purpose of the decree is to record the Senate's ratifica2

RostovtzefF, loc. cit.; see also Hansen, op. cit., p. 140. It must have been passed toward the end of the year, for the document itself (11. 4-5) shows that it was between the Ides of August and the Ides of December. Mommsen, Dittenberger, Foucart, and others favor 133 as the date. For the very early beginning of the revolt of Aristonicus see J. Vogt, 3

loc. cit. 4

For his arguments see his Roman Rule in Asia Minor\ II, 1033-34, n. 1. Broughton, Magistrates, I, 496-97. Although it is true that a praetor would normally convene the Senate only in the absence of both consuls, it is a point worth remembering that occasionally the consuls could empower a praetor to convene the Senate even when they were present in the city. See the full discussion and citation of sources by Mommsen, Romisches Staatsrecht, II3, 1, 129-31 and 23233. But since the consul could prevent a meeting of the Senate by his intercessio, this situation is only likely to arise when the consuls give their approval. Sickness, for example, could easily prevent a consul from convening the Senate, and, if the other consul was absent from the city and if the situation was sufficiently important, a praetor could be authorized to convene the Senate with the consul's approval. 5

61

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

tion of the will of Attalus and to guarantee his acts and those of his predecessors up to one day before his death. All future Roman governors will honor those acts [and make no changes without good reason]. This final clause may mean that no drastic changes in the internal arrangements of the country as established by the Attalids were to be made by the Romans. Roman rule would be substituted for Attalid rule. However, since part of the text is missing at this point, due caution is best.6 A sweeping generalization of this sort in the decree would be a very effective means of softening the fears of the Pergamene bourgeoisie, who might see a possible reversal of their economic security. Perhaps even at this early date (late 133) Rome had been informed of their fears and of the general discontent among the people and had used this opportunity to reassure them. 6 The restoration of διαθήκ]ην in 11. 17-18 appears incorrect to the present writer, but I can suggest nothing else except possibly μη κινώσιν αυτά ματ] ην. The phrase άλλα ςώσι κύρια μ4ν€ΐν points to a neuter plural noun or pronoun in the clause immediately preceding.

62

12 SENATUS CONSULTUM DE AGRO PERGAMENO

129 B.C.?

[Squeeze]

BIBLIOGRAPHY. Copy A (Adramyttium): G. Earinos, Ιωνία 1877, no. i n ; idem, "Ομηρος, September, 1877, p. 396 (cf. also Movaelov και Βιβλιοθήκη της Σχολής, [1875], 137); Τ. Homolle, B.C.H., 2 (1878): 128-32; Ε. Pottier and A. Hauvette-Besnault, B.C.H., 4 (1880): 376; Th. Mommsen, Ephemeris Epigraphica, 4(1881): 213-22 (Gesammelte Schriften, 8: 344-55); P. Willems, Le Senat de la republique romaine, I 2 (Paris, 1885), 693-708; P. Foucart, B.C.H., 9 (1885): 401-3; Th. Mommsen, Romisches Staatsrecht, IIP, 2 (Leipzig, 1888), 967-68, n. 4; P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Gottingen, 1888), no. XV, p. 62; P. Foucart, Memoires de XAcademie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 37 (1904): 337fF.; T. Wiegand, Athenische Mitt., 29 (1904): 267; C. Cichorius, Untersuchungen zu Lucilius (Berlin, 1908), pp. 1-6, 9; Abbott-Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton, 1926), no. 12, p. 268; G. Lafaye, I.G.R.R., IV (1927), 262. Copy Β (Smyrna): F. Miltner and Selahattin Bey, Turk Tarih, Arkeologya ve etnografya Dergisi, II (1934), 240-42 (A.E., 1935, no. 173); A. Passerini, Athenaeum 15 (1937): 252-83; M . Segre, Athenaeum, 16 (1938): 124; L. Robert, Anatolian Studies Presented to William Hepburn Buckler (Manchester, 1939), pp. 227-30; G. I. Luzzatto, Epigrafia giuridica greca e romana (Milan, 1942), pp. 136-41; D . Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), Π, 1055-56, n. 25; T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, I (New York, 1951), 496-97; G. Tibiletti,/.R.S., 47 (1957): 136-38; T. R . S. Broughton, Supplement to The Magistrates of the Roman Republic (New York, i960); L. R. Taylor, The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic, American Academy in Rome, Papers and Monographs X X ( R o m e , i960), pp. 170-75; A. H. J. Greenidge and A. M . Clay, Sources for Roman History 133-70 B.C., 3d ed. rev., by E. W . Gray (Oxford, i960), app. II A, p. 278; J. H. Oliver, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 4 (1963): 141-43; C. Nicolet, L'ordre equestre a Vepoque republicaine (312-43 av.J.-C.), I (Paris, 1966), 348-50; R . K. Sherk, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 7 (1966): 361-69.

D E S C F J P T I O N . Copy A: found not far from the ancient site of Adramyttium: Height: 0.700 m. W i d t h : 0.300 m. Height of letters: 0.010 m. I have examined the Berlin squeeze. Earinos dated it according to the lettering in the last twenty or thirty years of the second century B.C. Copy Β : discovered in the agora of Smyrna, where it is still to be seen, at the west end of the north basilica. Height: 1.17 m. W i d t h : 0.82 m. Thickness: 2.31 m. Originally it may have been the anta block of a large

63

Ευαγγελικής

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

public building in the ancient agora. The inscribed surface, on the front face, is damaged on all sides but still contains the largest of the fragments (a). Fragment b is cemented to the block and measures 0.21 m. in height, 0.25 m. in width. A new break in this fragment has obliterated many of the words and letters once seen by Passerini. Fragment c is a mere sliver, containing 14 letters of the text at the ends of lines 34-36. Fragment d is 0.10 m. high on the left, about 0.18 m. high on the right, 0.12-0.13 m. wide, and contains part of eight lines belonging to the ends of lines 45-52. A new photograph and a new squeeze of fragments a and b have been made by Mr. Pierre MacKay. These have been used in the preparation of the present text. The letters of the fragments vary in size from 0.010 m. to 0.015 m · m height and are sometimes squeezed quite tightly together so that as many as 75 or as few as 58 might appear in a given line. On the evidence of the lettering, Segre {αρνιά Passerini, op. at., p. 254) estimated that the inscription had been engraved in the first century B.C. Besides the four fragments containing the present decree of the Senate and the magistrate's sententia, there are two other fragments (e and f) belonging to the same dossier. They preserve part of a letter written by Julius Caesar (No. 54) and another document which recorded inter alia the boundaries of Pergamene land (see L. Robert, loc. cit.). These facts make it likely that the question of Pergamene land was raised again in the middle of the first century B.C. and that then all the documents bearing on the matter were engraved in a large dossier on the anta block of the building. Hence the date of the engraving proves nothing about the date of the senatorial decree. Apices are used throughout. Beta has a larger lower loop. The two bars of the upsilon meet the lower vertical bar very near the bottom.

] Frag, b (1-9) ca. 40 ] /cat πε[ρί ca. 15 -] - - - ca. 25 π€ρί τούτον τ]οϋ πράγματ[ος ούτως εδοξεν Περ] γαμηνούς πρ€σβ€υτάς άν8ρας καλούς κάγαθ] ους /cat ^tAo [υς παρά δήμου καλοΰ] κάγαθοΰ /cat φίλου συμμάχου τ€ ημέτερου προσ] αγορεΰσαι, χάρ [ιτα φιλίαν σνμμαχίαν] τε άνανεώσασΟαι. ΐϊϊμΐ S t ι /ρ ^ώραζ, ητιζ *] ν "ντιλογία εστίν κα\ί περί - - ca. ΙΟ --] - - ca. 10 - όπως περί τούτων] των πραγμ [άτ]ων, περί cLv λόγους επ[οιήσαντο, ca. 6 - -] - - στρατηγός κατά δήμον? ε]πιγνω τίνες ορο[ι] Περγαμηνών είσίνΙ [εάν αύτω φαίνηται] ca. 20 - - - - ορι ?]cr/Lta ύπεξειρημε[νο]ν πεφυλαγ[μενον εστίν μη καρπίζεσθαι ?] /cat Μανιος Άκύλλιος Γάιος Σεμπρώ\νιος ύπατοι ανά με[σ]ον αύ[τών φροντίσωσι όπως η]

αυτοί η - - 6 δεΐνα - - στρατ] ηγος κατά δήμον, [ω άν αυτών φαίνηται, τοΰτο ο αν] 6 δεΐνα στρατηγός κατά δημον ?] επιγνω περί τούτων τω [ν πραγμάτων εις την συγκλητον] [άπαγγελώσι. 'Ωσαύτως τη]ν συγκλητον θελειν κα[ί δίκαιον ^yeta^at εκ τε των]

64

SENATUS

CONSULTA

[ημετέρων

δημοσίων]

πραγμάτων

Βιαλαμβάνειν

[εΐναι δπως,

όντως

καθώς αν τω

δεΐνα] [στρατηγώ

κατά δημον ? δοκη]

περί τούτων τη

[προσόδους

επιτιθώσιν

των πραγμάτων,

[άρχοντες

ημέτεροι,

οΐ

Ασία]

η] της 'Ασίας τάς προσόδους

μι [σθώσιν,

φροντίζωσι

οΰτως

ως αν] [αύτοΐς

εκ των δημοσίων

π]ραγμάτων

πίστεως

ποιεΐσθαι [όπως

τε Μάνιος

*Ακ]ύλλιος

ύπατος,

τε της ίδία[ς

φαίνηται,

ταΰτα

ούτως

?]

ν εάν αύτώι φαίνηται,

ΘΙ[ - - nomina legatomm

ca. 20] [τόπον

παροχών]

ξενιά τε κατά το διάταγμα

{εάν αύτώι φαίν[ηται}

τον

ταμίαν

μισθωσαι] [άποστεΐλαί

τε κελεύ] ση ούτως καθώς αν αύτώι εκ των δημοσίων πίστεως

[της ίδια? φαίνηται.

εδο]ξεν.

ν Κρίμα

περί της χώρας,

κ [ή ρω μα [ημερών

τριών καλανδώ] ν Κοινκτειλίων κατά δημον

εγ Κομετίωι

?] περί χώρας

ν Δελτος

ν Β ν

προ]

δείνα [στρατηγός

[πραγμάτων

τε]

μετά σνμβουλ

[ίου

ό

] ήτις εν άντιλογία

εστίν δημοσ[ιώναις

προς

τους Περ] [γαμηνούς

επεγνω(?).

εν τω συμ]βουλίωι

παρησαν

' [Ανιήνσης, [. . . .ιος Γαίου

Με]νηνία,

Μάαρκος

Πούπιος

Μαάρκου

Κορνήλιος [Στελατείνα,

Λεύ]κιος

Μεμμιος

Γαίου

Κόιντος

Καικίλιος

Κοίντου

Γάιος] Σκαπτία,

Γά[ιος

Μαάρκου]

Μενηνία,

Κόιντος

Ούάλγιος

[Μαάρκου

λία,] [Λεύκιος

'Ιούλιος Σεξτ]ου

Φαλερνα,

Γάιος

"Αννιος

[Σεμπρώνιος [Φαλερνα,

Γάιος Κοίλι] ος Γαίου Αιμιλία,

Ποπλιος

ί Μάαρκος [νιος Μαάρκου

Τηρητ]είνα,

Πόπλιος

Γεσσιος

Γαίου

Άρνηνσης,

Γάιος

Γαίου] "Αλβιος ΙΊοπλίου

Κυρίνα,

Κ.οσκώ] Ποπλίου

Άρνηνσης,

Λεύκι[ος

* Αφείνιος] [Λευκίου

*Ωφεντει\να,

Γάιος

'Ρούβριος

Γαίου

Πουπεινία,

Γάιος Αικίννιος

Γαίου

[Τηρη][τείνα,

Μάαρκος

Φα]λεριος

Μαάρκου

Κλαυδία,

Πω [Λεύκιος

Φί]λιος

[Άππίου

Πολλία,]

Λευκίου Λεύκιος

Ήρατία,

Γάιος

Άνθεστιος

Μάνιος

Λευκείλιος

Μαάρκου

[μεντείνα,] Α ίδιος Γαίου Κυρίνα,

Γαίου

Μενηνία,

Κόιντος

Σπόριος

[Κλαύδιο?]

Καρουίλ[ιος

Λευκίου] [Σαβατείνα,] [Αιμιλία,

65

Πόπλιος

Σείλιος

Μάα] ρκος Άπποληιος

Λευκίου

Ούαλερία,

Μαάρκου

Καμιλία,

Γναΐος Λεύκιος

Όκτάυι[ος Άφείνιος

Λευκίου] Λε [υκίου]

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Frag, c Λεμωνία,

Γάιος]

Navrios

Κοίντου

Ούετυρία,

Γάιος

Νεμετώριος

νία, Λεύκιος

Κορνη] λιος Μαάρκον

'Ρω/ζιλια, Γναΐος

Ποπίλ]λιος

Ποπλίου

Τηρητείνα,

Λεύκιος

Δομετιος

Γν[αίου

Πουπζε}ινία,

Μάαρκος

Μούνιος

Μαάρκον

Λεμ[ωνία,

Ποπίλλιος

Ποπλίου

- - ca. 15 - - ] ο υ Λεμωνία, - - ca. 12 - Μαι]κία,

Κόιντος

- - ca. 15 - - -]ος Κοίντον - - ca. 15 - - Τ]ηρητείνα, - - ca. 15 - - - ] α , Λεύκιος Μ]άαρκος

- - ca. is

]είλιος

- - ca. 17

] Ούελείνα,

συμβουλίου

Λαβεριος

Λευκίου

Ήφεντείνα, Λεύκιος

- - ca. IS

ος - - ca. 18

Κόιντος

Μά(α}ρκος

Γενύκιος

Πλαιτώριος Λόλλιος

Σεξ του Καμιλία,

Γναΐος

γνώμης

γν]ώμην

άπεφήνατο

[

- -] ]

Τηρη[τείνα, Γάιο[ς

]

Μαά[ρκου

]

- - ca. ΙΟ -]

[- - ca. 15

]

- - ca. 15

]

Αύφ [ίδιος - - ca. ΙΟ - - -]να,

Άνθέστιο[ς

] 27aj9aT€iVa, Μάαρκος

Φαβία,]

Γάιος *Ερεν[νιος

Παπειρία,

Μενηνία,

Κρ [οσ] τομεί-

'Ρωμι[λία,

Σερριος

Λευκίου

Λευκίου

Κοίντου

Λεύκιος

Μαικία,

Γναίου

Λ]εμ[ω]-

να, Πόπλιος

• ca. 15 - Μαάρ]κου

Πομπήιος

Γαί[ου

- - ca. 13

]να,

ca. 22

]ισσβ.

ταύ[την

Frag, d

Πόπλιν

Άπο ]νΎ)$

ca. 23

βίναι 8οκεΐ - - ca. 20 - - - -\ωι μω - - ca. 20 - ca. 25

ος καλείται

eJcrTtv εκ τούτου

[- - - - ca. 18 τ[οΰ ποταμού

] σ [ . . . τ PJv/xjS^v [

α\ύτω

ca. 20 - -] ενγιστα

- w . 30

] από δβ [

ca. 25 - -]i70"7ra[

- ca. 30

] δριον

ca. 30

[

τω

ττοτα-

? - - ca. ΙΟ - ~]ασκωμανειτ[-

-]

et[vat] ] ]

Restorations are those made by Passerini except where noted. The text is based essentially on a new examination of the photograph and squeeze, except for fragments c and d, which are given as recorded by Passerini. ι και περί, Passerini. 3 φίλ[ους, Passerini. 4 χάρι[τα, Passerini. 5-9 The underlined letters were seen by Passerini but are no longer extant. 7 είσϊ[ν, Passerini. 10 στρατη] γός, Passerini. 15 τάς] της Ασίας προσόδους, Passerini. 17 Θη[ - -, Passerini, but it is difficult to decide what the second letter was. One expects here the name or names of the Pergamene envoys. ?.o Cf. No. T4,1. 75: δελτου ογδόης κηρώματι [τεσσαρεσ\καιδεκάτω. 21 Κοινκτελίων, Passerini; ΚΟΙΝΚΤΕΙΛΙΩΝ, stone. Copy A begins here and continues 10 line w ο*. 2 . It differs from Β in the construction, for it clearly contained an indirect statement: [Ύμας ctScWi βούλομαι κεκρικεναι d δεΐνα στρ]ατ[ΐ7)/]όν [προ ημερών τρι]ών καλανδών κτλ (Foucart). Passerini explains this difference by the fact that copies A and Β were engraved in different periods. Copy A might have been influenced by the letter from R o m e which communicated the text of the decree. Other differences between A and Β may be due to errors at the time of engraving or in the preparation of the copy. 23 επεγνω (?), Passerini, but perhaps επεκρινεν should not be dis­ counted. 23-47 Parts of names are restored in Β only when they are extant in A. It will be best to number each of the names and to treat them in the order of their appearance in B. For the list and the numbers, see below. References here will be to lines. 24 For the tribe of C ius C. f. there is a mistake in copy A, for it reads ΜΕΛΙΗΝΙΑ. 26 The names of C. Annius C. f. Arnensis and C. Sempronius C. f. Falerna, numbers 8 and 9 in copy B, have been delayed until numbers 23 and 24 in A. Taylor (op. cit., p. 171), after consultation with E. Gabba, explained this by pointing out that the tribe in post number 7 is also Falerna. Hence the engraver, when he glanced back from his work on the stone to the list in his copy, saw the Falerna of post number 9

66

SENATUS

CONSULTA

and assumed that he had already engraved it. He discovered his omission later and then entered the two names out of order; copy B, therefore, contains the correct order of names. 29 C. Rubrius C. f. Pupinia. For his tribe, copy A has ΠΟΠΙΛΛΙΑ. 31 L. Filius L. f. Horatia. Copy A has Sabatina for the tribe. Taylor (op. cit., p. 173) believes that copy Β is more likely to be correct. 32 L. Antistius C. f. Menenia. In copy A the nomen is given as ΑΝ0ΤΙΟΣ, confirmed by the Berlin squeeze. Taylor (op. cit., p. 191) correctly labels copy A a mistake; Β is again correct. 3 3 P. Silius L. f. Valeria. This is a mistake in copy Β; there was no tribe Valeria (Taylor, op. cit., pp. 255 and 173). Copy A has Galeria, which must be correct. 35 C. Nautius Q. f. Veturia. Mommsen's Ναντιος is confirmed by the squeeze. 3 7 L. Domitius Cn. f. Fabia. Copy A breaks off at this name with the reading Λζύκι[ος - - 22 - - ]ΕΙΣ. On the Berlin squeeze I was able to make out the top parts of what appeared to be ΥΦΑΒ near the end of that lacuna. Clearly, those traces must be the remains of the tribe of Domitius. Hence copy A at that point may be restored thus: Λεύκιος Αομετιος ΓναΙο]υ Φαβ[ία]\ this would confirm the tribe of the Domitii. 40 [ Maejcia. Passerini failed to notice the iota between the kappa and the alpha. 43 Πλαττώριος, Passerini, but what he took to be the first tan is actually an iota. 47 The small vacat near the end of the line indicates the beginning of a new section. 54 ]ια[- - Passerini, but these are not visible.

COMMENTARY. In a famous speech before the assembled representatives of the Greeks in the province of Asia, Marcus Antonius is quoted by Appian (B.C. 5. 4ff.) as saying that the Romans had released the Greeks from the taxes which they had formerly paid to the Pergamene kings. Only the action of demogogues (i.e., the Gracchan party in 123 B.C.) had forced them to reverse this decision and to reimpose the taxes. His actual words are: 'Υμάς ήμΐν, ώ άνδρες ^Ελληνες, "Ατταλος 6 βασιλβύ? υμών εν διαθήκαις άπελιπε, και ευθύς άμείνονες ύμΐν ήμεν 'Αττάλουους γαρ ετελεΐτε φόρους Άττάλω, μεθήκαμεν νμΐν, μέχρι δημοκόπων ανδρών καΐ παρ* ήμΐν γενομένων εδέησε φόρων. Clearly the two events meant here are the acquisition of the Pergamene kingdom after the death of Attalus III in 133 B.C. and the legislation of C. Gracchus in 123 or 122 B.C. The Pergamene kingdom had been willed to Rome by Attalus, but actual possession and organization of the land into the province of Asia had been delayed by the revolt of Aristonicus until 129 B.C. The statement as reported by Appian seems to mean that no publicani were engaged in collecting taxes in Asia until they were authorized to do so in 123 or 122 B.C. by the terms of the lex Sempronia. There is no question whatever that C. Gracchus had a law passed in 123 or 122 B.C. which regulated the taxation in Asia. From the references to this lex Sempronia in our sources (Cicero In Verr. 3. 6. 12; Scholia Bob., p. 157, Stangle ed.; Fronto Epist. ad Ver. 2. 1; Appian B.C. 5. 4) it is clear that the principal tax imposed on Asia was to be the decumae, a tenth of the produce, and that it was to be collected by private agents under contract to the government in Rome through the offices of the censors. This meant, of course, that the publicani henceforth would be able to obtain those contracts, for they alone had sufficient experience, organization, and working capital to carry through successfully such a complex operation. They would also be able to collect the portorium and the scriptura.

67

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Therefore, until the discovery of the present documents from Smyrna, modern scholars have generally felt that Appian was right and that no taxes were collected in Asia by the publicani until after 123 B.C. But the present decree of the Senate and its accompanying magisterial decision have caused many scholars not only to doubt the accuracy of Appian's remarks but also to re-examine the scope and intent of the lex Sempronia. In the case of the latter, for example, one might ask whether it merely regulated and redefined already existing conditions in Asia or actually introduced a system that had not previously been in force. The contents of these documents are of vital interest to students of Roman Asia and are of exceptional importance for the study of republican prosopography. Lines 1-20: the senatus consultum. The Senate decreed in the usual way to recognize the Pergamene envoys and their city as friends and allies. Concerning the land over which a dispute had arisen between the Pergamenes and the publicani (1. 22), a Roman magistrate was to conduct an investigation and then determine what were the opoi of the Pergamenes. His decision was to be communicated to the Senate. And those who collected the taxes in Asia were to be ordered, apparently (the text is fragmentary), to honor that decision. The consul [ JuAAios was then ordered to provide the customary accommodation for the envoys. Such, in the briefest of terms, was the decree proper. Lines 20-53: the decision of the magistrate and the members of his consilium. In order to settle the land dispute between the two parties a Roman magistrate, probably the praetor urbanus, conducted an investigation as ordered, and in consultation with his consilium of 55 Senators (and equites?) reached his decision. The text of this decision (11. 48fF.) is hopelessly mutilated, and the most that can be said is that it defined the borders or extent of the land rather carefully. There are two reasons for the major interest in this inscription. First, it appears to indicate that Roman publicani were collecting the taxes in Asia before the lex Sempronia. The consul in line 17 is most likely Manius Aquillius, who succeeded Perperna in Asia and brought the revolt of Aristonicus to an end. He was consul in 129 B.C., but he spent the next three ycais in Asia as pro-Gor-s^i nrganizirii?. the new province with the help of a ten-man commission. The phrase in line 17 ictv αύτώι φαίνηται shows that the consul mentioned there was actually in office. When these points are combined with the fact that, of the two consuls in line 9, one had a name ending in —]niust it becomes rather apparent that the year of the decree was 129 B.C., when the two consuls were C. Sempronius and Manius Aquillius. The only other combination of consular names that might fit the mold would be M. Tullius Cicero and C. Antonius, consuls in 63 B.C., a date that seems too late not only because of the lettering in copy A but also because of the age at which some of the members of the consilium must have lived.1 Second, the 1 A weightier objection to such a date is the possibility that Sulla had deprived Pergamum of her freedom as a result of the city's participation in the Mithridatic War; see the commentary to No. 55. It is known that Julius Caesar had been honored by Pergamum as savior and benefactor for having restored to the god "the city and the sacred territory." And Mithridates of Pergamum in that same

68

SENATUS

CONSULTA

consilium itself is unusually large and without parallel in this regard. It is extremely valuable in the information it gives us about the tribal connections of some famous Roman families and in the simple fact that it is a list of Romans who were all (or par­ tially ?) active in the Senate at a single point in time. One assumes they are all senators, but there is a slight possibility that others may have been included. Full identification with known individuals, however, is rendered very difficult because of the omission of cognomina. The assumption of 129 B.C. as the date can be considered reasonable only if it can be shown that the members of the consilium were indeed alive and active in the Senate at that time. A list is essential: 1. Q. Caecilius Q. f. Aniensis (Taylor, p. 198). 2. C ius C. f. Menenia (Taylor, p. 223; Broughton, Supplement to Magistrates, P· 33). 3. M. Pupius M. f. Scaptia (Taylor, p. 249). 4. C. Cornelius M. f. Stellatina (Taylor, p. 207). 5. L. Memmius C. f. Menenia (Taylor, pp. 233-34; Broughton, Supplement, pp. 40-41).

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

Q. Valgius M. f Ha (Taylor, p. 262; Broughton, Supplement, p. 67). L. Iulius Sex. f. Falerna (Taylor, p. 222; Broughton, Supplement, p. 32). C. Annius C. f Arnensis (Taylor, p. 190). C. Sempronius C. f. Falerna (Taylor, p. 252). C. Coelius C. f. Aemilia (Taylor, p. 199). P. Albius P. f. Quirina (Taylor, p. 188). M. Cosconius M. f. Teretina (Taylor, p. 208). P. Gessius p. f. Arnensis (Taylor, p. 218; Badian, Historia, 12 [1963]: 134). L. Afinius L. f. Oufentina (Taylor, p. 187). C. Rubrius C. f. Pupinia (Taylor, p. 251; Broughton, Supplement, p. 54). C. Licinius C. f. Teretina (Taylor, p. 224; Broughton, Supplement, p. 33). M. Falerius M. £ Claudia (Taylor, p. 213). M \ Lucilius M. f. Pomentin^ (Taylor, p. 227; Broughton, Supplement, p. 37). L. Filius L. f. Horatia (copy A has Sabatina; Taylor, p. 213). C. Didius C. f. Quirina (Taylor, p. 210). Q. Claudius Ap. f. Pollia (Taylor, p. 203). L. Antistius C. f. Menenia (Taylor, p. 191). Sp. Carvilius L. f. Sabatina (Taylor, p. 201). P. Silius L. f. Galeria (Taylor, p. 255). Cn. Octavius L. f. Aemilia (Taylor, p. 239). M. Appuleius M. f. Camilla (Taylor, p. 192).

period was instrumental, because of his friendship with Caesar, in obtaining Pergamum's freedom; see N o . 54. If Pergamum had not been free in 63 B.C., there could hardly have been any dispute with the publicani about taxation.

69

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43· 44.

L. Afinius L. f. Lemonia (Taylor, p. 187). C. Nautius Q. f. Veturia (Taylor, p. 237). C. Numitorius C. f. Lemonia (Taylor, p. 238). L. Cornelius M. f. Romilia (Taylor, p. 207; Broughton, Supplement, p. 18). Cn. Pompeius Cn. f. Crustumina (Taylor, p. 245). P. Popillius P. f. Teretina (Taylor, p. 247; Broughton, Supplement, p. 49). L. Domitius Cn. f. Fabia (Taylor, p. 211; Broughton, Supplement, p. 23). [ ] M. f. Pupinia. M. Munius M. f. Lemonia (Taylor, p. 236). [ ] Lemonia. Q. Popillius P. f. Romilia (Taylor, p. 247; Broughton, Supplement, p. 49). [ Maejcia. Q. Laberius L. f. Maecia (Taylor, p. 223). C. Herennius [ ]. [ ] Q. f. Oufentina. M. Serrius M. f. [ ]. [ ] Teretina. L. Genucius L. f. Teretina (Taylor, p. 218).

4546. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54.

[-]a. L. Plaetorius L. f. Papiria (Taylor, p. 243). Missing. M. Lollius Q. f. Menenia (Taylor, p. 226). C.[ ]. [ ]ilius Sex. f. Camilla (Badian, Historia, 12 [1963]: 132). Cn. Aufidius [ ]na (Taylor, p. 196). [ ] Velina. L. Antistius [ ]na (Taylor, p. 191). P. [ ] Sabatina.

_ 55. M.[

-].

It must be emphasized that it is dangerous to work outward from this list in order to date the documents. The absence of cognomina is the weak link. One should postulate a probable date by other means and then examine the names to determine if they tend to support or reject that date. Because of the evidence of the consuls' names in lines 9 and 17 and the consequent probability that the date is 129 B.C., Passerini, Broughton, Taylor, and Badian have examined the names from that point of view and appear con­ vinced that such a date could be correct. At least the names in part can be tentatively identified with known individuals or families. The number of these tentative identifica­ tions is admittedly small, but despite the objection of one modern scholar it is sufficient to support the date. It is generally agreed that the names are listed in the order of rank, as was done in the

70

SENATUS

CONSULTA

listing of witnesses to decrees of the Senate.2 Hence, those names that occur near the beginning of the list ought to be the senior consulates, followed by the praetorii. The others, perhaps two-thirds, were of lower rank. There could have been an age difference of perhaps twenty or thirty years between the men at the head of the list and those at the end. A few of the more important identifications must be mentioned at this point, each one, of course, based on the assumption that the date is 129 B.C. Q. Caecilius Q. f. Aniensis could be the consul of 143 B.C., Q. Caecilius Q. f. L. n. Metellus Macedonicus. Since his name appears first on the list, he must have been the senior consular. The man whose name is second on the list could have been the consul of 140 B.C., C. Laelius C. f, as suggested first by Passerini. The man in post number 7 is most probably the son of the consul of 157 B.C., Sex. lulius Sex. f. L. n. Caesar, and the father of the consul of 90 B.C., L. lulius L. f. Sex. n. Caesar.3 Mommsen (Gesammelte Schriften, 8: 351) was the first to identify him as the father of the consul of 90 B.C. Passerini, Taylor, and Broughton agree. Thus it is likely that our L. lulius Sex. f. Falerna in post number 7 is identified with a known family in a known period of time. The three generations are accounted for nicely. The names and the sequence fit. As Broughton put it, this "points to an earlier rather than a later date" for the consilium. L. Domitius Cn. f. Fabia, in post number 33, may have been the son of the consul of 162 B.C., Cn. Domitius Cn. f. L. n. Ahenobarbus (cos. suff.), and the brother of the consul of 122 B.C., Cn. Domitius Cn. f. Cn. n. Ahenobarbus, as suggested by Taylor and fol­ lowed by Broughton. Quite a few of the other names can be tentatively identified with known individuals or families in such a way that they create no obstacles to the date 129 B.C. The rest of them are unknown or are too fragmentary to allow any attempt at identification. RostovtzefFthought that the date was "almost certainly" 129 B.C. and that taxes were probably imposed on Asia at that time. 4 He doubted the accuracy of Appian and believed the evidence suggested "that the province of Asia was never (even between the death of Attains and τ?η Β r. } immune from, taxation, not even the cities of the province, to say nothing of the parts of the province not organized as cities, and that the appearance in the province of publicani was not deferred until the time of C. Gracchus." Such a view naturally requires a reconsideration of the contents of the lex Sempronia. If it did not impose the taxes and allow the publicani to farm them, what did it do ? Passerini and RostovtzefF both felt that it merely instituted a reform in a system already functioning. For example, it may have introduced the decumae as a substitute for older taxes rooted in 2

Cf. Mommsen, Gesammelte Schrifien, 5: 508 and 8: 350; Taylor, op. cit., p. 175. Broughton, op. cit., I, 497. Cf. Passerini, op. cit., p. 266. Taylor, op. cit., p. 222, notes that Falerna of copy Β may be a mistake for Fabia. But copy A has -vcc. The tribe of the Iulii was the Fabia. * S.E.H.H.W., II, 811-13. The date was also accepted by M. Segre, he. cit.; E. V. Hansen, The Attalids of Pergamum (Ithaca, 1947), p. 151; Tibiletti, he. cit.\ Greenidge and Clay, he. cit.; Nicolet, he. cit.; and H. Hill, The Roman Middle Class in the Republican Period (Oxford, 1952), p. 67. 3

71

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Attalid times, the older taxes either being abolished or changed to conform to this new method. Thus, the decumae, portorium, and scriptura may not have recived their final form until 123 B.C. The period between 133 and 129 B.C., of course, must have been one of confusion from this point of view, but even then there is evidence that Rome exacted forced contributions from the Pergamenes for the conduct of the war against Aristonicus.5 David Magie, in his monumental work on Roman Asia Minor, objects to the dating in 129 B.C., believes Appian is correct, and places the document in 101 B.C. For him the consuls in line 9 need not necessarily be those of the current year, and the consul of line 17 is more likely to be the younger Manius Aquillius, who was consul in 101 B.C. He thinks that the Lucius Domitius Cn. f. of post number 33 in the consilium ought to be the consul of 94 B.C., which would appear to make him too young to have been a member of the consilium in 129 B.C. He returns therefore to the view that the lex Sempronia introduced Roman taxes into Asia for the first time and that it was not until then that publicani began their operations there. His view, however, has not been accepted by the majority of scholars. Broughton was the first to point out its weaknesses by noting that the words ύπατος and ύπατοι in the nominative probably meant the consuls currently in office, that L. lulius Sex. f. in post number 7 almost certainly was the son of the consul of 157 B.C., and that 129 B.C. was the very time when disputes over land or boundaries would naturally have risen in the new province. And Lucius Domitius Cn. f. could just as easily be the son of the consul of 162 and a brother of the consul of 122 B.C.6 The date 129 B.C. appears to be correct. Appian is wrong or, at the very least, guilty of excessive compression in his description of conditions in Asia. Before 123 B.C. taxes in Asia were probably farmed out in the province itself under the control of the governor. The lex Sempronia simply established the tithe system and laid it down that contracts in the future would have to be let out in Rome by the censors. Such a course of action would have won C. Gracchus the support of the equites and any others involved in the societates.7 Magie stands alone, as far as I know, in rejecting the date 129 B.C., but the evidence for his view is far less convincing than the view of Passerini, Rostovtzeff, Broughton, Taylor, and all the others. There remains the question of the ordo to which the members of the cofoH'mf» belonged. Willems thought that they were all senators, but Mommsen (Romisches Staatsrecht, ΙΠ, 968) warned that such a consilium need not of necessity consist entirely of senators. And after the discovery of copy Β Passerini felt that equites may have been included in the list. Broughton treated the names in his Magistrates on the assumption that they were all senators, and Taylor agreed with him. Syme and Badian, however, were not entirely 5 Forced contributions: I.G.R.R., IV, 292 (cf. L. Robert, Utudes Anatoliennes (Paris, 1937), pp. 45-50). These must have been wartime measures introduced by the Romans to help finance the war against Aristonicus. They were not regular taxes. See Magie, op. cit., Π, 1045-46, n. 34, and Tibiletti, op. cit., p. 136. 6 Broughton, op. cit., p. 497; see also E. Gabba, Athenaeum, 32 (1954): 69, n. 3, and P. A. Brunt, Latomus, 15 (1956): 23. 7 Badian, Foreign Clientelae, pp. 183-84.

72

SENATUS

CONSULTA

convinced and felt that nonsenators might have been included.8 The mutilated state of the list and the lack oicognomina make it almost impossible, with the present evidence, to decide this question one way or another, especially in view of the fact that the names become more mutilated toward the end of the list, precisely where equites would have appeared.9 But the possibility still exists. 8

R . Syme, Classical Philology, 50 (1955): 137. and E. Badian.y.R.S., 52 (1962): 208-9. See the lists given by Nicolet, op. cit.t Deuxieme Partie: Titulature et Prosopographie, Les Structures de VOrdre Uqtiestre, pp. 147-464. He assumes, it seems, that our list is senatorial and does not consider the possibility of the presence of equites. 9

73

13 SENATUS CONSULTUM DE REBUS PHRYGIAE ORDINANDIS

119 B.C.? or 116 B.C.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. W. M. Ramsay, Journal of Hellenic Studies, 8 (1887): 496; idem, Classical Review, 2 (1888): 326; P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Gottingen, 1888), no. XXIX, p. 51; W. M. Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics ofPhrygia, II (Oxford, 1897), no. 710, p. 762; Th. Mommsen, Athen. Mitt., 24 (1899): 195 (Gesammelte Schriften, 4: 66); Th. Reinach, Mithridate Eupator, Rot de Pont (Paris, 1890), no. 4, p. 457; B. Niese, Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten, III (Gotha, 1903), p. 373; W. Dittenberger, O.G.I.S., II (1905), 436; G. Lafaye, I.G.R.R., IV (1927), 752; Α. Η. Μ. Jones, Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (Oxford, 1937), p. 59; T. R. S. Broughton, "Roman Asia," in T. Frank, An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, IV (Baltimore, 1938), 511; W.-M. Ramsay, The Social Basis of Roman Power in Asia Minor (Aberdeen University Press, 1941), pp. 282-83'» D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), I, 169, with nn. 35-37 in II, pp. 1058-59; A. H. J. Greenidge and A. M. Clay, Sources for Roman History 133-70 B.C., 3d ed. rev., by E. W. Gray (Oxford, i960), p. 55; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 48.

DESCRIPTION. Found in the modern village of Aresli about two miles from Oynayan and northeast of Apameia. It has been assumed by Ramsay that the ancient site of Lysias was in the vicinity, but there is no real proof of the actual location of that ancient city (cf. L. Robert, Villes d'Asie Mineure1 [Paris, 1962], pp. 156, 367, and 426). Unfortunately, no adequate description of the stone has ever been reported, and for the lettering one must rely upon the transcription first given by Ramsay in the J.H.S. (8(1887]: 49^)·

----ο] ύτως ·--]v διωρθώθη J iyev€TO πρόrepov ]ος ταύτα κύρια μεveiv Soy]/χα συνκλήτου. 776/ji ων Κόιντος Φάβιος νιος Μάξιμος (?) Γ] άιος Λικίννιος Ποπλίου νιος Γετας ύπατοι (?) λόγους €ποιήσαν]το, π€ρι τούτου πράγματος ού­ τως €&οξ€ν οσα βασιλβύ? Μιθραδάτη]ς Ζγραψζν η ίδωκ4ν τισιν η άφζΐκ€ν, Ινα ταύτα κύρια μ€ίντ) ούτω καθώς] ζδωρήσατο €ΐς εσχάτην ήμέραν, π€ρί τ€ των λοιπών Ινα κρίνωσιν οι δ€/ line 5 of the Greek version, and in the S.C. de Prienensium et Samiorum Litibus (No. 10), line 1, it is found later in the line. Slight as this is, one cannot slate positively that the name of Q. Fabius Maximus should be restored in line 6. But it is very clear that the decree must date after the death of Mithridates V in 120 B.C., but unfortunately the date of the praetorship of Licinius is unknown. The latest 4

Magie, loc. cit., believed that another decree must have been passed prior to the present one, which authorized the seizure and annexation of Phrygia. But there is no reason why both of those items could not have formed part of the present decree, especially if its date is not 116 but 119, as is possible (see below). 5 Ramsay's suggestion, Cities and Bishoprics, II, 762, that the commissioners sent to regulate Phrygian affairs may have written the letter to the city of Lysias, where the stone would have been erected in antiquity, is very unlikely. Such commissioners make their recommendations to the Senate and the Senate either accepts them or does not; if it accepts them, a magistrate is directed to communicate that decision to the people concerned. Besides, there is no proof that the ancient city of Lysias was the recipient of the letter, for the exact location of that city is not known; cf. Robert, Villes d'Asie Mineure2, p. 156.

76

SENATUS CONSULT A

possible date for his holding of the praetorship is given by Broughton as 119 B.C., ac­ cording to the Lex Villia Annalist This date for the present decree is a more probable one than 116 B.C., for, considering the furor in Rome over the Phrygian affair, the death of Mithridates in 120 B.C. must have aroused almost immediate pressure for a reversal of the grant by Aquillius. The Senate may have acquiesced. Four years and then seizure of Phrygia are difficult to explain if the year 120 B.C. actually saw a concerted effort on the part of the publicani and the equestrians in general to have the Senate reconsider its earlier decision. And because of the earlier opposition to the loss of Phrygia I believe that such a concerted effort was begun in Rome in 120 or 119 B.C. Both consuls for 119 may have been absent from Rome campaigning against the Segestani and the Dalmatians, and therefore the praetor would have been able to convene the Senate.7 Of course, such a date cannot be considered until it can be shown by independent evidence that Licinius had been praetor in 119 and that both consuls for that year had been absent from the city. And it must be added that the present decree says absolutely nothing definite about the status of Phrygia. Further evidence is needed before final judgment can be rendered. 6 Magistrates, I, 526. It is interesting to notice that the other consul of 116 B.C., Q. Fabius Maximus, had been praetor in 119. 7 Ibid.t p. 525. One of the consuls, L. Caecilius Metellus, certainly was absent on the campaigns, and his colleague, L. Aurelius Cotta, may have accompanied him as Broughton suggests.

77

14 EPISTULA L. CALPURNII PISONIS ET SENATUS CONSULTUM DE ITANORUM ET HIERAPYTNIORUM LITIBUS

BIBLIOGRAPHY. S. Xanthudidis, "Αρχ. Έφ., 1920, pp. 82fF.; W . Cronert, S.E.G., II (1924), 511; M. Cary, J.R.S., 16 (1926): 194-200; G. De Sanctis, Rivista difilologiat n.s., 4 (1926): ΐβοίΕ; A. Passerini, Athenaeum, n.s., 15 (1937): 34fF.; N. Papadakis, fH αρχαία ' Α ν α τ ο λ ι κ ή Κρήτη (Canea, 1938), pp. i84ff.; V. Arangio-Ruiz, Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris, 2 (1939): 592ff.; M. Guarducci, Inscriptions Creticae, III (1942), 4, no. 10, pp. 106-11; H. van Effenterre, R.E.A., 44 (1942): 3ifF.; F. W . Schehl, Κρητικά Χρονικά, 5 (1951): 302-12; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 50 (cf. T. R . S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, I [New York, 1951], 537-38, on Q. Fabius and his embassy).

D E S C R I P T I O N . Found in 1919 at Erimupolis (Itanus) and n o w in the Candian Museum. Photograph of the right side of the stele in Guarducci, op. cit., p. 109. Height: 1.25 m. Width: 0.48-0.50 m . Thickness: 0.13-0.15 m. It is engraved on the front and right side, but lines 74 and 88fF. appear only on the front. The letters belong to the second half of the second century, having a height of 0.007-0.008 m. The front is badly corroded and the letters are difficult to decipher, whereas the right side is quite legible. The new publication of the inscription by Guarducci is the only one to be used, for she has examined the stone and a squeeze so thoroughly that the older readings have been superseded. This stele must have contained the conclusion of the document, for there is an extensive vacant space at the bottom.

7»

112 B.C.

SENATUS CONSULTA

[ Κώμων [

] καταστάσιος

πρεσβευταί Κρήτ€ς ' Ιεραπυτνιοι Φείδων * Ετεάνορος ύός, ]p°S [ύ]ός, Μνάσιππος Δίωνος ύός, Εύβέτης Βειδνλω ύός, λόγον €7ΓΟίή-

5

ίο

15

20

σαντο χ [άριτα φιλ] ίαν συμμαχίαν τ€ άνενεώσαντο καί συνησθήναι ττ\ συνκλητω επί τω [ -€Ϊττ]ασαν καί καθ* Ιοίαν επί το βέλτειον προχωρζΐν περί τ ε της γ€γ€νημ [έ] νης [ φιλοτ]ιμίας ευχαρίστησα [ν] και ττ€ρϊ των αδικημάτων των ήμΐν γεγενη] Ίτάνιοι γαρ αδικημάτων μη μένων [ - γινομένων ύ[φ'] ημών αύτοΐς, υπό δε [της των] Κνωσίων [πό]λεως ποτέ, πόλεμον άπαράνγελτον ήμΐν εποίησαν παρά τά της συνκλήτου δόγματα και αδικήματα [ήμΐν] έξετελέσαντο, περί ων και πρότερον πρεσβείας άπεστείλαμεν [επί την σύνκλητον] μ [αρτυρού] σας τά γεγενημένα αδικήματα εις ημάς. ή δε [CRWAJTJTOS' κατα[

]μ€ν ^7rL

Μάρκου Αίμυλίου και επί Μανίου *Ακιλίου υπάτων καί [ο]ύτε συμμάχους αυτούς προσηγόρευσε ούτε Κνωσίους ούτε τους [ ] Δραγμίοις ούτε [] όπως άνεκρίθη καί εδογμάτισε πόλεμον καί αδικήματα ή­ μΐν αν[ ] παραγενόμενοι υπέρ τε του πολέμου καί[ ]τ7)$ ημέρας [ ]ν ην άπεδείξαμεν ήμετέραν ούσαν [-] δια γένους καί άνάβατ [ο] ν ύττό μηθενό[ς] γεωργηθεΐσαν, την δε νησον την καλουμένην Αεύκην ήμετέραν οΰσαν εκ προγόνων. Ίτάνιοι Sc μη δυνάμενοι περί των [ ]των εις ημάς άδικημάτ[ω]ν άπολογήσασθαι μήτε πρότερον μήτε νυν [ - - - - - - - - - - - - ]των πρεσβευτών αντενκαλοΰσιν ήμΐν [ - - - - - - ] η~ην χώραν περισσάν ούσαν ετεσι είκοσι οκτώ, λόγους εποιησα[ ] προς τη συνκλητω, ή δε σύνκλητος εδογμάτισε [δπως την χώραν καί την νησον πολ]έ[μου άρ]χτ}ν ελομένου διακατέσχομεν, ίνα ούτως κα-

79

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

τε[χω]μεν

25

30

πράξιν στρατηγού είναι, και όπως Λαίλιος 8ημον 8ώ τον iv ημΐν κρινουντα. 8οθ εν­ τός 8ε ημΐν του Μαγνητών 8ημου και Γαίου Λαιλίου ύπατου γράφοντος \πρ\6ς τον 8ημον τον Μα­ γνητών [ - - ] καϊ την επιστολην την υπ* αύ[τ]οΰ [γ]ραφεΐσαν εμ μη[ -] 8ε ως ύφ* ημών τε κάκείνων όμόλογον εγενηθη. νν [] ισαντι την νησον την καλουμενην Λεύκην και την χω­ ράν [ --] ο? ό 8ημος 6 Μαγνητών έκρινε κατά το 8ό[y/xa της συνκλητου υπ'] *Ιτανίων [προγο]νικάς οϋσας καρπίζεσθαι κυρίως, ου συναντησαμεν[ - - -] ημών αίτιον επιφερουσι [.]«[.]σον[ Τ€]λ€υτα[ι]α? υπ* αυτών άνει-

{

:

- -;--;

]

αντες επί την συνκλητον εν

[

; εις Κρητην τε

]ν

παραγεγονότων

καϊ τάς [

πρ]εσ[β]είας ού8εποτε περί τούτων φω-

νην προήκαν [

] πρεσβεύοντες περί τών εν[ε] -

"

[ [ νημενων ύπε[ [ τών [

*

]ν μνήμην εποιησαντο εν τω] μεταξύ χρόνω σννβόλων γεγε]χότων ύπερ τε άν8ρών ε ]ν αντιποιοΰ[ν]ται κα\ νενικηκο­ ]νημα κα[θ]ώς συνεθεμε-

4° θα [

-

] α υ [··] ν KCCL

8ε8ωκότων καϊ είληφότων [ - - - - - -

-ου]τ€ λόγον εποιησαντο ού­

τε σα[

] τουμ [ε] νους υπ* αυτών

80

SENATUS CONSULT A

[

]του

καθώς

ήμ€Ϊς οΙ

-

]εν

Μ[α]γνησία

γενομε45

ν[

]σης δια προς

Λ

]ίω[ ]

,",*"; * *", δ' ενκαλεσαι

[--

του

αύ-

-

·

καϊ

- - - - -πε]ρι

των ανδρών και

περί

των οίκ€τών ους επι[ [ 5°

ά δ ] ι κ ή μ α τ ά τε κ[α]ι

]ιοι οΰσιν

'Ρώμην

πρεσβευτών

συνκλητον ημάς

[--υμών, επεμφαμεν

[

[

TOtjs" ύμετεροις [

δόγμασί

] ψηφίσματος

ον [ μας

δε επί την συνκλητον,

άξιοΰμεν

εμ πα] ντί καιρώ την εΰνοιαν

μΐν όπως ισαντι 55

πρότερον

[

φιλίαν

πρεσβ]ευταΐς. ον τρόπον

εκάτεροι

βοηθησαι

οΰν την

η· ήμΐν το

και συμμαχίαν

περί τούτου

[την χώραν

νυν

€ΐς

προς

δι υμών άναγκασθώσιν

. - _ . -]τες προς την ύμετεραν

[ούτως εδοξεν]

και

] των πα[ρα]γεγονότων

του

και την νησ]ον

δίκαι­

προς ή~ πράγματος

νενωμημενοι

εΐησαν

τη προ του ημερα[ι πρεσβεία

η 6 πόλεμος

εις Κρητην

εν αύτοΐς

απεστάλησαν

ηρξατο

οΰ πο]λεμου

κάκείνη

η

όπως οΰτως

τούτο το[6ο

[νωμ] ώνται

]σ#αι προς Λεύκιον

στρατηγόν ρίου

ένεκεν Σερουιος

ΰπατον

[--

-

[

εχωσιν

καρπίζωνταί

-

] τίνες τούτου

Λεύκιος

Καλοπ]

τος [

του

κριτη­

όρ [νιος σ] τρατηγός

]ην [ο]πως

νηι ον τρόπον εκάτεροι

ταύτην

τε

Καλοπόρνιον

ο υ ] τ [ € ] επι το κριτηρι [ον] παρετύχοσαν

[

Σο(λ}πίκιος

εαυτοΐς

ούτε

ύπα­

κρί-

[την χώραν και] την νησον περί οΰ η πράξις

[ενε]

στηκε

νενωμη? Λβ - - ούδε τους άνδρας άπέδοσαν τους κρα]τουμ[έ]νους υπ* αυτών, Cronert, but questioned by Guarducci with a reference to Passerini, op. cit., p. 35, n. 1. 45 After ΣΗΣ it is uncertain whether there is a fault in the stone or a letter has disappeared. 56-58 Cf. Insaiptiones Creticae, III, 4, no. 9,11. 51-54, in which is found the quotation of this part of the decree by the Magnesian tribunal, with minor differences. 59 προσέρχε]σθαι (?), Guarducci. 60 οΐ]τινες (?), Guarducci. 68 πρεσβευ]τάς (?), Guarducci, noting that Q. Fabius came to Crete with legates. 75 [τεσσαρεσ\κα.ιδεκάτω, Schehl. 77 ται?

82

SENATUS

CONSULTA

(κ}[αθα\ραις [Se της η\μ4ρας τυχούσ[ης ίβ]ρας κατά συνκλητου | 8όγμα [ωραις , Schehl, whose word order, however, is bad; ταί? 1[λα]ραΐς [ωραις η\μ4ρας, Guarducci, but one misses the article with ημέρας. Since this day was one of the intercisi dies, one might expect here a literal translation into Greek of some form of the Latin verb intercidcre. 80 [rots' -nepl be των ορών αυτών δίκασα]σι κτλ., Schehl. 81 First lacuna restored by Schehl. 82 στήσω (?), Guarducci, who notes that she seems to see ΝΙΟΙ before this word, παραγενέσθαι πρότ€ρον αΙτή]σω κτλ., Schehl. 83 Schehl. 84 [υμών χαροτονητζ δικα]στάς κτλ., Schehl, but in this type of document one would expect άποστείλητε. 85 [άμφισβήτημα], Schehl, but the usual word in epigraphical texts of this nature is ή άμφισβήτησις or τα αμφισβητούμενα. 97 Before ]ωσ€ is either Γ οτ Π οτ Τ.

COMMENTARY. The land dispute between the Cretan cities of Itanus and Hierapytnia has been known for some time through two inscriptions, one from Itanus and the other from Magnesia on the Maeander. Although these contained lengthy descriptions of the origins and general history of the dispute, unfortunately they presented such casual references to the Romans and their participation in the events that it was most difficult, if not impossible, to date and evaluate the various stages of the dispute. The discovery at Erimupolis (the ancient Itanus) in August of 1919, therefore, of a third inscription concerned with the arbitration between the two cities was most welcome, and, although a precise and detailed picture of the whole episode from beginning to end is still not possible, this third document clarifies much that had formerly been very obscure. The first two inscriptions, far too long to be reproduced here, are really separate copies of the same document and have been published most recently by Guarducci in the Inscriptiones Creticae, III, 4, no. 9. Since that document (to be cited as no. 9) and the present one (no. 10) complement each other in the presentation of the past history of the dispute from the time of its very beginning (145 B.C.) to its conclusion (112-111 B.C.), it will be convenient to give a brief summary in chronological order of the information found in them.1 Before the death of Ptolemy VI Philometor in 145 B.C., the Itanians had controlled considerable land adjoining the nearby sanctuary of Zeus Dictaeus, as well as several off­ shore islands, one of which was Leuke. After they had been harassed on various occasions by the Praisians, whose territory adjoined theirs, they asked for help from Ptolemy VI, who obliged them by sending a garrison in order to guarantee the security of Itanus and its possessions. When this garrison was recalled to Egypt after Ptolemy's death, the Itanians managed to defend themselves and their land through the help of friends. But then a general war in Crete broke out, and Praisus was destroyed. The city of Hierapy tnia promptly disputed with the Itanians their possession of the land and the island. Servius Sulpicius (Galba, cos. 144 B.C.) arrived in Crete (141 B.C.) with 1

For the two earlier inscriptions, copies of the same document, see M. Guarducci, Inscriptiones Creticae, III, 4, no. 9, and the bibliography there cited, to which, however, should be added R . C. Bosanquet, Annual of the British School at Athens, 40 (1939-40): 60-70, and, especially important for the details pertaining to law, J. Partsch, Die Schriftformel im romischen Provinzialprozesse (Breslau, 1905). pp· 5-23·

S3

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

legates from Rome and put an end to the war. Itanus, thereupon, because of Hierapytnia's claims, sent an embassy to Rome to address the Senate on the subject of her land. The Senate in turn called upon the city of Magnesia to act as arbitrator in the dispute. The Magnesian tribunal gave its decision under the consulship of C. Laelius in 140 B.C., awarding the victory to Itanus. The matter, however, did not end at that time. Later, when the Knossians, as the friends of the Hierapy tnians, had committed some act of in­ justice against the Itanians, the Itanians began an undeclared war against the Hierapytnians. Thereupon the Roman Senate intervened, stopped the war, and attempted to settle their differences once more. The time of this intervention was 115 B.C., under the consulship of M. Aemilius, and 114 B.C., under the consulship of Manius Acilius.2 The attempt was unsuccessful. Finally, in 112 B.C., the Senate decreed that the consul L. Calpurnius Piso was to appoint an arbitral tribunal to review the case and hand down a decision. The consul was also instructed to see to the destruction of any buildings on the territory belonging to the sanctuary of Zeus Dictaeus. This arbitral tribunal was authorized to act upon the recommendations given to it by Quintus Fabius and his legates who had visited the land in question. The Magnesians, again chosen as the arbitrators, were instructed by the Senate to award the victory to that party which possessed the land prior to the earlier Cretan War which had been settled by Servius Sulpicius. They were given one year to settle the case. Accordingly, it may not have been until 111 B.C. that the final decision was reached. At any rate Itanus again was victorious. (All of this is taken from nos. 9 and 10.) Chronologically our document (no. 10) precedes the other (no. 9). In ours, four distinct sections may be seen, each of them referring to events that occurred in 112 B.C. while L. Calpurnius Piso was the consul: (1) speech of the Hierapytnian envoys to the Senate (11. 1-55); (2) the senatus consultum (11. 55-74); (3) decree of L. Calpurnius Piso authorizing the city of Magnesia to set up an arbitral tribunal (11. 75-88); (4) letter of Calpurnius to the Hierapytnians ordering them to destroy any buildings they may have erected on the disputed land. Document no. 9, on the other hand, is the decision of the Magnesian tribunal made later, within the period of one year (or actually 360 days; no. 10, Tl. 84-88). The vacant space at the end of our document would seem to indicate that it contained the conclusion of the inscription. In lines 84-88 one can see that up to that point our document is in outward form a letter of the consul in 112 B.C. to the Magnesians and that it was followed by a short letter to the Hierapytnians (11. 89-97) which ordered them to remove any buildings that they might have erected in the territory under question. Hence one may postulate that the beginning of our document (now lost) must have con­ tained the following matters, as suggested by Guarducci: (r) the prescript of the consul's letter to the Magnesians; (2) the prescript of the senatus consultum on the motion of the consul; (3) the speech of the Itanian envoys to the Senate. Although much of it is missing, enough remains to present a connected account of the several episodes. It has 2 For these two consuls see Broughton, op. cit.t p. 531 (M. Aemilius Scaurus) and p. 533 (M*. Acilius Balbus).

84

SENATUS

CONSULTA

been observed by Cary, op. cit., pp. 198-200, that, although the "second Magnesian jury performed its task in a thoroughly businesslike way," the Roman Senate behaved in an almost irresponsible manner. In the first place, why did the Senate allow the entire case to be reopened after the first Magnesian tribunal had settled it ? If the Senate were not guilty of some mistake itself, it should have upheld the verdict of the first Magnesian tribunal. Secondly, the instructions given by the Senate to the second tribunal are, in one sense, equitable andjust while, in another sense, strange and prejudicial. The Senate instructed the second tribunal (no. 9,11. 51-54, and no. 10,11. 56-71) that the land was to be possessed in whatever manner it had been possessed prior to the earlier Cretan war. This much is excellent. But it also instructed the Hierapytnians to destroy any buildings they might have erected on it. This prejudged the case, as the Magnesian tribunal pointed out (no. 9, 11. 84-88). 3 One may surmise that the Senate handled the later episodes of the dispute in a disinterested and therefore negligent manner, a manner that reminded Cary of the senatorial indecision in the matter of the quarrels between Adherbal and Jugurtha of about this same time. And these are, of course, only two of many examples that could be cited to show that Rome's foreign policy in the period beginning with the Gracchi was not dictated by any honest effort to govern the provinces with justice or responsibility.4 3 το be πάντων μεγιστον και Ισχνρότατον τεκμηριον του εγνωσμένων των καθόλου πραγ­ μάτων ύπο ' Ρ ω μ α ί ω ν βφ* όμολογουμένοις ημάς και κεκριμενοις την φήφον €π€νηνοχ4ναι· Ίτανίων γαρ άζιωσάντων την σύνκλητον Ινα το ενωκοδομημενον ύπο Ίεραπυτνίων χωρίον €ν τηι κρινομίνηι χώραι καθαιρεθηι η συνκλητος Ιπίταζζν Λευκίω Καλοπ[ορνίω Λευκίου Πείσωνι στρατηγώ δπως καθαιρ]€θη et τι ένωκοδόμηται., κτλ. 4 In a later generation Cicero {Pro Plancio 26. 63) said regretfully: sed ita multa Romae geruntur ut vix ea quaefiunt in provinciis audiantur. See R . E. Smith, The Failure of the Roman Republic (Cambridge, 1955), chap. 10.

85

15 SENATUS CONSULTUM DE COLLEGIIS ARTIFICUM BACCHIORUM

BIBLIOGRAPHY. G. Colin, B.C.H., 23 (1899): 1-55, 303-16; E. Ziebarth, Rheinisches Museum, 55 (1900): 515-18; W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.2, II (1900), 930; Bruns-Gradenwitz, Fontes iuris Romani antiqui7 (Tubingen, 1909), no. 40, pp. 171-76; F. Poland, Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesen (Leipzig, 1909), pp. 132η0.; W. S. Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens (London, 1911), pp. 370-71; G. Colin, Fouilles de Delphes, III, 2 (1911), no. 70 a [tab. 7, 2); G. KlafFenbach, Symbolae ad historiam collegiorum artificum Bacchiorum (Diss., Berlin, 1914), pp. 29-35; M. Holleaux, Hermes, 49 (1914): 581-89; H. Pomtow, in W . Dittenberger, S.I.G.3, II, (1917), 705; M. Holleaux, Revue des Utudes Anciennes, 19 (1917): 157η0.; F. Poland, R.E., s.v. "Technitai," in the Nachtrdge to vol. V A 2 (1934), cols. 2504η0.; G. Daux, Delphes au IIe et au Ier Steele (Paris, 1936), pp. 356-72; S. Riccobono, Fontes iuris Romani antejustiniani2, pt. 1 (Florence, 1941), no. 34, pp. 248-55; J. Day, An Economic History of Athens under Roman Domination (New York, 1942), pp. 92-94; S. Accame, // dominio romano in Grecia dalla guena acaica ad Augusto (Rome, 1946), pp. 4-5; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 49.

DESCRIPTION. Inscribed on four stones that originally formed part of the southwest corner of the Athenian Treasury at Delphi. The fourth stone contained the conclusion of the document, for its lower part is uninscribed. Unfortunately only stones III and IV are reasonably complete, for I and II exist only in fragments. Stone I, lines 1-16; fragments 210, 968, 2524, 3914c, and two unnumbered fragments. Stone II, lines 17-33: fragments 113, 160, 179, 184, 227, 269, ^89, 291, 3c:, 39:4^, and two unnumbered fragments. Stone III, lines 34-51: fragment 300. Stone IV, lines 52-66: fragment 462. The number of each fragment is the number appearing in the official catalog of the Greek Ephor, but the smallest fragments are unnumbered. Thus we can see that stone I has been put together from six fragments, and stone II from twelve fragments. In the editio princeps of Colin will be found a sketch illustrating the position assigned to each fragment in each stone. The present document, however, is not the only one appearing in this part of the Athenian Treasury which was concerned with the events described in it, for actually it is only part of a large dossier connected with the quarrel between the Athenian and Isthmian guilds of Dionysiac Artists. Colin recognized a total of eight stones, and there may have been many more, all connected somehow with the same topic. The attempt by Pomtow (op. cit., pp. 704-5) to restore many of

86

112 B.C.

SENATUS CONSULT A

the other fragments and to reconstruct the outline of this great series of documents must be used with caution. His chronology and interpretation of the fragments should be tempered by the cautious and judicious remarks of Daux (be. cit). The lettering is very badly executed, the down-strokes often tilted out of the vertical or curved instead of being straight, with the result that often Η may be confused with A or K. The number of letters in each line varies; on stone III it fluctuates between 70 and 79. The height of the letters is 0.010 m., the space between lines, 0.006 m.

5

['j&m Ζΐιον]υσιο[υ άρχοντος, επι της . . . ίδος πρώτης πρυτανείας, ήι Λάμιος Τιμούχου 'Ραμνουσιος εγραμμάτευεν,] [Έκατομβ]αιώνο[ς της πρυτανείας. Αόγμα συγκλήτου. Λεύκιος Καλπόρνιος] [Λευκί] ου υιός Πίσ [ων Καισωνΐνος ύπατος τηι συγκλήτωι συνεβουλεύσατο προ ημερών . . . ] [€ΐ]δώ[ν Ί]ουνίων εγ κ[ομετίωι. Γραφομενωι παρήσαν Μάρκος Αιμίλιος Μάρκου υίος] [27]κα[υ]/}ο? Καμιλία, Σε[ρουιος Σερο]υίο[υ υί]6ς [ ] Λευκίου υίος Κορνη[λία, Ποπ]λίου υίος Π[απ]ιρία. [ΙΊερι ών οί πρεσβευταΐ] 'Αθηναίοι Θεμισστοκ[λής υιός, Δημ]οχάρης Δη[μοχάρου] υιός,

Ά[ [Θ]εοφιλίσκος

ίο

υιός,]

Όλυμπίχο[υ

υιός, άνδρες κάλοι κάγα]θοι φίλ[ο]ι πα[ρά] δήμου [καλοΰ κάγαθοΰ φίλου] [σ]υμμάχου τε ήμετερο[υ, λόγους εποιήσαντο, χά]ριτα φιλίαν σν[μμ]αχίαν [τε άνενεώσαντο και εκάλεσαν] την σύνκλητον ύπερ τ[ών παρ* εαυτοΐς τεχνιτών τών] παρά τα δ€δο[γ/χ]€να [τηι συγκλήτωι ήδικημενων, όπως] ταύτα κύρια δια/χ€ϊ^ κα[ι οί τεχνΐται οί συντελοΰντες εις Ίσθμόν και Νεμεαν ζημίαν άποτείσωσιν] κατά τά της συγκλήτου [δό)//χατα -

] από συνκλήτου >

15

γνώμης

δπ[ως

]ναι [ --;-■]

εάν δε τις μη πειθαρχτ} τοΐ[ς δεδογμενοις μηδέ ε]μμεν[ηι ταΐς σννθήκαις υπόδικος έστω κατά την δια( ?)-] [β]ούλευσιν, όπως ήτις αν είσ[άγη τών συνόδων δίκη]ν αεί δια[φυλάττουσα τάς συνθήκας άναγκάζη τους] [α]πειθοΰντας εμμενειν τοΐ[ς δεδογμενοις τηι σ]υγκλήτωι [ οί δε φάσκοντες προς τους] [τε Άμφικτίονας κ]αι την συγκλ[η]τον σύμφωνους ήμας γενε[σ]θαι [δοκεΐν, αλλά τάς συνθήκας τ]εθεΐσθαι

S7

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

[έναντι]ως αΐς £[λά]βοσαν

εντολαΐς τ[ι]νες των εκ Πελοπον(ν)ήσου τε[χνιτών και διά ταύτα etvat άκύ]ρους, οϋτ€ [τα??] συνθήκαι[ς] εμ(μ*)ενουσιν, της Τ€ [ε]ργασίας ύπαρχ[ού]σης [ήμΐν άποκ]ωλυ[ο]υσ[ιν ημάς αδίκως], τά τε χρή[μα]τα ημών τά ο[ντ]α κοινά €ξιδυάσ[ζον]τα(,, συν€[λ]θόντες τ€ εις [Σικυώνα] συνοδον έποι [ι^σαντο] τταρά το δό[y]^a της συγκλή[τ]ου το επί ΙΊοπ[λίου Κορ]νηλίο[υ, ε]ν ώι εδοζεν ήμά[ς συμπ]ορεύεσθαι iv Θήβ[αις καϊ "Αρ]γει, κα[1] άρχ€Ϊα κατεστ [η] σαν, καϊ τώ [ν κο] ινών χρημάτων τάς προσό [δους κ] ατεχρήσαντο [εις τάς ιδίας δαττάνας] παρά τους [κοινούς νόμους τών τεχνητών, πρεσβευόντων ημών εις *Ρ[ώμην κ]αι καλουν[των την σύγκλητον το δε] [μεγιστον, ούδε ταΰτηι ύπήκουσαν, ά]λλά /cat δόγμα ημών λαβόντω[ν iv ώι - - - - -]

m[

]

■ ] τους αντιλέγοντας ήμΐν, ούδ[εν έλασσον] της τε εργασίας ημάς άποκωλύουσι, τά τε χρήματα ημών εξ ι] διάζονται, σύνοδόν [τε] εν Σ[ικυώνι συν]άγουσι παρά το δόγμα της συνκλήτου το επί Κορνηλίου καί παρά το]υς χρησμού [ς] του ['Απόλλωνος. Άζιο]ΰμεν ούν την σύγκλητον Ινα 7τ'[- -] ~ -]ς εκατερωι [ - - - - ... ] ημών εκτός τών τριών μερών κα] ι περί ών οι π [ρεσβευται από τ] ών περί τον Διόνυσον τεχνιτών εξαποσταλεντες τών συντελουντων] ες Ίσθμόν [και Νεμεαν], Σωσικλείδας Φιλοκράτου, Δαμόξενος - Πο]λυκράτης [ Φι\λιππος Ήρώδου, Λ ενεφάνισαν τη συγκλήτωΐ' τών τεχνιτών τών εν τη 'Αττική όντων π] οιησαμεν [ων κατή] γορίαν κατής συνόδου επί του στρα(χη)γοϋ εμ Μακε­ δονία Κορνηλίου Σισεννα, καί γραμμά\τυν άττοδη[θεντ]ων τη συνόδωι υπ* αυτών παρά του στρατηγού όπως πρ]εσβευτάς άπο[στ]είλωμεν εν [η]μεραις [. .] /cat απ[οστει]λάν[τ]ων ημών πρεσβε[υτάς π]ερ[ϊ ών ο στρα-] τηγός εκελευσεν τους άπολογιουμένους αύτώι, Διονυσιον, Άνδρόνικον, Φιλοκράτην, Δράκοντα, τούσδε περί ών μεν ε(Χ)χον τάς εντολάς μη επιτελεσαι, καταφρονήσαντ(α)ς δε του τε της συγκλήτου δόγματος και του στρατηγού και της συνόδου ελ^οντα? εις Πελλαν συνθήκας ποιήσασθαι προς τους iv 'Αθήναις φ [άσκ] οντάς είναι τεχνίτας επιτίμιον επιγράψαντ(ά)ς κατά της συνόδου τάλαντα δέκα ·

88

SENATUS

CONSULTA

εφ* οΐς και

[δο]θ€ντων

αύτοΐς

εγκλημάτων

κατά τους της συνόδου

νόμους

παρόντες

iv Θτ^αι? κα­ τάδικοι

εγενοντο

και διά ταύτα

προσλαβόμενοί

τίνα? των iv Θτ^αι? και

τεχνιτών γράμματα

τά κοινά άπήλθον

έχοντες

μετά βίας και άποστάται σύνοδον

ποιοΰντο

μετ* αλλήλων

ύπεναντία

Βοιωτίαι

τά τ€ γενόμενοι

καθ* ιδίαν

ε-

πράτ(τ)οντες

τη συνόδωι

και τοις κοινοΐς

νόμοις,

την τε δικ [at] οδοσίαν

διέκοψαν

των τεχνιτών,

τίνας ίερεωσύνας

ε(Χ)χον

επενεγύων,

τά τε

χρήματα

καϊ τους ί(ε)>ρούς στεφάνους,

ά καϊ ουκ

άποδεδωκαν

και τ [ ά ] αναθήματα

άπηλθον

έχοντες

ούδε εως του νυν, τάς θυσίας καϊ σπονδάς

εκώλυον

ποιεΐν

καθώς είθισμενον

ην τη συνόδωι τώι τε

Αιον[ύ] σωι και τοις άλλοις

θεοΐς και τοις κοινοΐς

εύεργεταις

'Ρωμαίοις.

Άξιοΰμεν

οΰν την

σύγκλητον, γεγονεΐαν

και εν τοις έμπροσθεν

χρόνοις συνόδω

σνντηρησαι

τά εκ παλαιών χρόνων

δεδομένα όπως

ποδοθη

τά χρήματα

παρα(ιτί)αν

τών μεγίστων

αγαθών

τηι

[ι], τίμια

και φιλάνθρωπα

και

φροντίσαι

ά-

και τά ά ν α ^ / χ α τ α και οι στέφανοι

τη συνόδωι

τη κοινή τη

συντελούση(είς) *Ισθμόν καϊ Νεμεαν,

ά εχουσιν

οι εν Θήβαι? τεχνΐται άποσστά

γεγενημενοι,

τάς τε σννθηκας

και τίνες τών εγ

Βοιωτίας

[ται]

ας εποιησαντο

ίνα άκυροι γενωνται,

επει

εντολάς και γεγοναν

ύπερ

εποι(η)σαντο

α [ύτ] [άς οι πρεσβε] υται παρά τάς δοθείσας

αύτοΐς

κατάδικοι τ[ης

συνόδ]ου

νόμους,

όπως τε οι νόμοι τών εξ 'Ισθμού καϊ Νεμέας ώσιν.

τών

[πρα] γμάτων

ούτως εδοζεν

Άθηναίοις

καϊ φίλους παρά δήμου καλοΰ συμμαχίαν

τε άνανβώσασ^αι.

οι τεχνΐται

η (£)ψηφίσ

και Νεμέας

ποιώσιν,

τοΰτο

όπως άρωσιν. τεχνίταις

τη ''Αττική οΰσιν και τοις τεχνίταις

89

ημέτερου

λόγους

εποιησαντο,

[αν] -

ώι έλασσον

άμα μετ* αυτών οι

Άττικ[η]

ο δε σύμφωνον

γεγονός

εστίν

τοις εν

τοις εξ Ίσθμοΰ Κορνηλίου

τε

χάρι [τα]

τεχνΐται οι εν τη οντες εργασίαν

κα[ι]

και φίλου συμμάχου

περί δε ών πραγμάτων

οι εξ Ίσθμοΰ

κύριοι

- -

φιλανθρώπως

άνδρας καλούς

καγαθοΰ

ηρώτησαν το εν εαυτοΐς

·

πρεσβευταΐς

προσαγορεΰσαι, φιλίαν

τεχνιτών

vcpl τού[τ'.ον]

άποκριθηναι, αγαθούς

τούτων

[κατά τους]

και Νεμέας

ZWe'vva στρατηγό

επί [ΰ]

Γναίου

τοις

τι

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

60

η ανθυπάτου συνόδους

εκεί

αυτών

δντος>

ποιειν

σύμφωνον

ήώθασιν,

εστάναι

εδοζεν.

δόγματος

τάς

εκεί

αί σύνοδοι

περί χρημάτων

δημοσίων

η κοινών

περί

τε ίδία(ς}

ούτος τ€ 4πιγνώι φαίνηται

επικρίνη

εδοξεν.

δπως

μ€τά

ων λόγους

τον ταμίαν

άποστεΐλαι

κέλευση

ταύτα

ούτως

εποιήσαντο,

ύπατον καθώς

δπως ytVaji/ται

τ€ Λεύκιος

Καλπόρνιος

καθώς

δπως

προς

α υ τ ώ ι εκ τών πίστεως

ούτως

Συγκλήτου εδοζεν.

Μάαρκον

προ [σ] -

πραγμάτων £eVia /cara το 65

το πρότερον

δε

Λείβιον ελθωσιν,

οπού

ύπατος

δημοσίων Άθηναίοις

διάταγμα

αν αύτώι

εκ τών δημοσίων

πραγμάτων

maaTeajS' τε ίδίαζς}

ψαίνηται

εδοξεν

vacat

Text and restorations are those of Colin, except where noted. 14-15 δια( ? )β]ούλευσιν, Klaffenbach; συμ]βονλεύσ(ε)ιν, Dittenberger. 17 άλλα φάσκουσι συνθήκας συντε]θεΐσθαι, Colin; τε]θεισθαι, KlafFenbach (cf. Polybius 1.11. 7). 19 [ήμΐν άποκ]ωλυ[ο]υσ[ιν ήμας αδίκως], Klaffenbach; [ήμας άποκ]ωλ[ύον]σ[ι παρά το δίκαιον], Colin. 20 [Σικυώνα]; cf. 1. 26. 22 [εις τάς ιδία? δαπανάς], Α. Wilhelm, Anzeiger Akad. Wien, 1922, p. 26 (S.E.G., II [1924], 320). 25 ούδ[εν έλασσον, i.e., nihilo minus. 32 ΣΤΡΑΓ0Υ, stone. 34 Klaffenbach reports space for about two letters after ή]μεραις, and Colin two or three. At any rate the stone-cutter forgot to inscribe the numeral, for the space was left empty. 36 ΕΧΟΝ, stone. ΚΑΤΑΦΡΟΝΗΣΑΝΤΕΣ, stone. 38 ΕΠΙΓΡΑΨΑΝΤΕΣ, stone. 42 ΠΡΑΤΟΝΤΕΣ, stone. 44ΙΡΟΥΣ, stone. 47 ΠΑΡΑΠΑΝ, stone. 49 At the end of the line the space after συντελούση is uninscribed. Colin thought of εις at this place but did not include it in the text; it was added by Klaffenbach. 51 ΕΠ0ΙΣΑΝΤ0, stone. 52 At the beginning, - -]σται, Colin, but Klaffenbach saw - -]YTAL 56 ΗΨΗΦΙΣ. . TO, stone. 64 ΙΔΙΑ, stone, as also in 1. 66.

COMMENTARY.

T h i s i m p o r t a n t d o c u m e n t contains a senatus consultum o f 112 B.C.

w h i c h settled once a n d for all—at least as far as w e h e a r — t h e l o n g - s t a n d i n g q u a r r e l b e t w e e n the Auiciikxi a n d I s t h m i a n guilds c f D i o n y s i ? c Artists. 1

For some.years these

t w o associations h a d b e e n e n g a g e d i n such bitter disputes that t h e y appealed t o R o m a n intervention o n four separate occasions.

T h e entire m a t t e r e v e n t u a l l y b e c a m e a p o i n t o f

h o n o r w i t h the A t h e n i a n p e o p l e a n d assumed political i m p o r t a n c e .

Consequently,

w h e n this final decree o f 112 w a s passed i n favor of t h e A t h e n i a n s it was e n g r a v e d u p o n the wall of the A t h e n i a n T r e a s u r y at D e l p h i for all t o see.

F o r t u n a t e l y it contains a

fairly full r e s u m e o f the quarrel. 1 The clearest and most trustworthy account of the quarrel is the one given by Daux, loc. cit. Shorter resumes are presented by Day, loc. cit., and A. Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens (Oxford, 1953), pp. 294ff. The attempt made by Pomtow (op. cit., pp. 704-5) to present the docu­ ments and the evidence in sequence suffers (at times) from faulty or misleading chronology and unsupported restorations of the minor fragments. His texts must be used only with due attention to the researches of Daux. The date of the present document is assured by the mention of the consuls L. Calpurnius L. f. Piso (11. 2-3) and M. Livius C. f. Drusus (1. 62); see Broughton, Magistrates, I, 538.

90

SENATUS

CONSULTA

Four stages of the quarrel are at once apparent. The first one culminated in a senatus consultum (1. 21) that regulated the relations between the two guilds and established Argos and Thebes as common places in which to hold their meetings. Such co-operation called for the establishment of common officials and funds. The date of this decree is uncertain beyond the fact that it was passed under the consulship or praetorship of a certain P. Cornelius. This official may have been P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica (consul in 138), P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus (consul in 134), or P. Cornelius P. f. Lentulus (praetor in an unknown year).2 The second stage ended in 118/17 B C » when repre­ sentatives of the two guilds met with C. Cornelius Sisenna, the governor of Macedonia.3 At this meeting the Isthmian representatives agreed to pay a fine of ten talents. The end of the third stage was reached by the passage of a second senatus consultum, a few years after the meeting before Sisenna, to confirm the provisions of the first decree and to uphold the agreements made in 118/17. When these three measures failed to produce peace between the guilds a fourth appeal to Roman authority was made. This resulted in a third senatus consultum, the present one of 112 B.C., which gave complete victory to the Athenian claims. Unfortunately the first two decrees of the Senate are lost and we are dependent upon the present one for their general provisions. The representatives of the two guilds were given an opportunity to present their cases. Their respective complaints in 112 B.C. were as follows: 1. The Athenian guild: a. The Isthmians refused to pay the ten-talent fine imposed by Sisenna. b. The Isthmians obstruct them in their profession. c. The Isthmians appropriated money belonging to the common fund. d. The Isthmians disobeyed the first decree of the Senate by forming a separate

guild. 2. The Isthmian guild: a. The agreement reached under Sisenna to pay a ten-talent fine was made contrary to the instructions given to the Isthmian envoys. b. These envoys, upon their return to Thebes, were called to account for their actions und were condemned. Thereupon they won sympathizers in Thebes, took the records of the guild, and absconded. As rebels they formed a separate guild, set up their own laws, and then appropriated the priesthoods, the money, votive offerings, and the holy crowns that had originally belonged to the common guild. 2 Pomtow, op. cit., 704, n. 3, identified the official with the P. Cornelius P. f. Lentulus who had been honored by the Isthmian guild, apparently in 128 B.C. (704 B-C), believing him to be the praetor or propraetor of Macedonia at that time. Daux, op. cit., pp. 36ifF., rejects this view. See also Broughton, op. cit., p. 507, n. 1. 3 The date of his governorship can be determined by means of Dittenberger's S.I.G.3, II, 704 K 1 , which allows us to collate the Macedonian and Athenian years. For his title στρατηγό [υ] ή ανθυπάτου in 1. 6ο see Holleaux in Hermes, 49: 581-89, and in Revue des Etudes Anciennes, 19: 88ff. See Broughton, op. cit., p. 528, n. 2.

91

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

c. Because of the actions of the rebels the Isthmians have been hindered in the performance of their customary sacrifices to Dionysus, to the other gods, and to the Romans. From several other documents additional information on the quarrel is obtained, the most significant being the fact that the Amphictyonic Council in about 125 B.C. began to show great affection for the Athenian guild. 4 This gave the Athenians a powerful ally in their quarrel with the Isthmians. When one considers the cleverness with which the complaints of the two guilds are worded, it becomes clear that any connected story of the events is bound to be con­ troversial or misleading. Nevertheless, some questions must be asked and at least tentative answers given. If we knew the precise origin of the quarrel, we might be in a far better position to understand and interpret the present decree. It would appear that in the course of the second century B.C. the somewhat younger Isthmian guild expanded and spread out from its place of origin in the Isthmus. Because of its eventual monopoly over much of Greece it is probable that tension between it and the Athenian guild built up early in the century.5 The destruction of Corinth in 146 B.C. may have been a serious economic blow to the Isthmian guild, and the Athenians may have seen an opportunity to expand into the Isthmian "territory" and to break the Isthmian monopoly in cities such as Thebes and Argos. 6 N o solid evidence exists, however, to substantiate such a situation. But we do know that the Athenian guild began to experience difficulty in the exercise of its various immunities at just about this time. Since the Athenian immunities had been guaranteed to them by an Amphictyonic decree of ca. 278/77 B.C. (7.G., II2, 1132) and had been renewed in ca. 130/29 B.C. (ibid.), very strong motives must have prompted the people or the state which violated them. 7 One of the reasons for the renewal of Athenian immunities may have been the fact that the Isthmians began to disregard them. That it was no small matter may be deduced from the fact that in our decree of 112 B.C. it is not the Athenian guild which sends its 4 J.G., II 2 , 1134, U. 1-63 ( = S.LG. 3 , II, 704 E). For the date and interpretation of the decree see Daux, op. dt., pp. jioff., and, for further discission of the date, see G. Klaffenbach, Gnomon, 1938, p. 20, as well as Daux, Chronologie Delphique, (Paris, 1943)1 p. 59· Daux observed that nowhere is there any better evidence for the enthusiasm and good will of the Amphictyonic Council toward the Athenian guild than in this decree. One of the reasons for this good will was certainly the exemplary fashion in which the Athenian guild had taken part in the Pythais of 128/27 B.C. (for this see Daux, op. cit., pp. 722-26, and the text in Fouilles de Delphes, III, 2, no. 47). 5 See Poland, op. cit., cols. 250off. 6 The territory of Corinth and perhaps all of Boeotia and Euboea became ager vectigalis: M. I. RostovtzefF, S.E.H.H.W., II, 748. For the details and latest discussion of the problem see Accame, op. cit., pp. 28ff. On the other hand, however, the evidence for the economic condition of Athens indicates that the Athenians enjoyed considerable prosperity in this same period. See Day, op. cit., pp. 88-100, who points out (p. 94) that the Athenian guild at this time was also prosperous, for very large delegations were sent to Delphi for the Pythaids of 128/27, 106/5, and 97/96 B.C. 7 The date of I.G., II 2 , 1132,11. 52-94 ( = S.LG. 3 , II, 692) hinges on the date of the Delphian archon Aristion and that of the Athenian archon Demostratus. Daux, in his Chronologie Delphique, pp. 58-59, dates it in either 134/33 (?) or 130/29 (?).

92

SENATUS

CONSULTA

delegates to Rome but the Athenian state. Therefore, it is possible that successful Athenian expansion of its guild and "immunity incidents" may have been the basis of the quarrel between the two guilds. Then the difficulties of administering a joint guild, the unauthorized agreement to pay a fine, the rebel Isthmian artists, and the favoritism shown the Athenian guild by the Amphictyonic Council obviously would have widened the breach between them. However that might be, the Athenian victory was a mile­ stone in the history of the Athenian guild. Thereafter it became the leading association of its kind.

93

16 SENATUS CONSULTUM ET FOEDUS CUM ASTYPALAEENSIBUS

BIBLIOGRAPHY. F. G. Osann, Sylloge Inscriptionum AtUiquarum Graecarum et Latinarum (Leipzig, 1834), pp. 388fF. (based on the copy by J. B. G. d'Ansse de Villoison now in the Bibliotheque Nat., cod. ms. suppl. graec. 930, f. 78); A. Boeckh, C.7.G., II (1843), 2485, and add., p. 1098; Th. Mommsen, Hilgenfelds Zeitschrift fur wissenschafiliche Theologie, 18 (1874): 232ΓΓ.; E. L. Hicks, A Manual of Greek Historical Inscriptions (Oxford, 1882), p. 203; G. Cousin, B.C.H., 10 (1886): 171; Th. Mommsen, Romisches Staatsrecht, III3, 1 (1887), p. 596, with n. 2; P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Gottingen, 1888), no. XXI, pp. 42-45; F. Bechtel, in Collitz-Bechtel, Sammlung der griechischen Dialektinschriften, III, 4 (1889): 3463; C. Cichorius, Rheinisches Museum, 44 (1889): 444-47; F. Hiller von Gaertringen, I.G., XII, 3 (1898): 173, and suppl. (1904), p. 278; E. Taubler, Imperium Romanum (Leipzig, 1913), pp. 45, 48-50, 56, 59-62, 124-25, 363-69, 458; Th. Mommsen, C.I.L., I2 (1918), commentary on no. 588; G. Lafaye, I.G.R.R., IV (1927), 1028; H. Horn, Foederati (Frankfurt, 1930), pp. 73, 76-77; G. H. Stevenson, C.A.H., IX (1932), 464; A. N . Sherwin-White, The Roman Citizenship (Oxford, 1939), pp. 158-59; M. I. RostovtzefF, S.E.H.H.W., III (1941), 1514, n. 48; S. Accame, II dominio romano in Grecia dalla guerra acaica ad Augusto (Rome, 1946), pp. 80-90; Lewis-Reinhold, Roman Civilization, I ( N e w York, 1951), no. 132, pp. 331-32; G. Tibiletti, Athenaeum, n.s., 31 (1953): 7fF. (cf. S.E.G., XV, 506); Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 52; A. Donati, Epigraphica, 27 (1965): 13-17.

DESCRIPTION. The stone was found in the Church of St. Ann on the island of Astypalaea and then transported to Smyrna, where it was destroyed in the fire of 1797. Villoison, however, had made a cupy in iriiii&cuks, which, dap?*"" its inaccuracies, forms the basis for all subsequent editions. F. Hiller von Gaertringen has given a transcription of it in I.G., XII, 3, 173.

94

105 B.C.

SENATUS CONSULT A

A. Senatus consultum ] περί τούτου του πράγματος ούτως εδοξε' [προ?] τον δήμον τον 'Αστυπαλαιεων ειρήνην φιλίαν συμμα-] χίαν] άνανεώσασί?αι · άν8ρα καλόν καϊ αγαθόν [παρά δή·] μου] καλοΰ και αγαθού καϊ φίλου προσαγο[ρεΰσαι τούτω] τε] φιλανθρώπως άποκριθήναι· εδοξεν. Καϊ [δτι Πόπλι-] ος] 'Ροτίλιος ύπατος χάλκωμα συμμαχίας [ταύτης iv] τω] Καπετωλίωι κατηλωθήναι φροντίση [ούτως κα-] θ] ως αν αύτω εκ των δημοσίων πραγμάτων [πίστεως] τε] της ίδιας φαίνηταιεδοξεν. "Οτι [τε Πόπλιος 'Ροτί-] λι]ος ύπατος τον ταμίαν κατά το διάταγμα [£ε'νια δούναι αύτω] κ]έλευση θυσίαν τ€ iv Καπετωλίω, εάν θελη, ποιήσ[αι αύτω εξή καϊ κατά] τον νόμον [τον τε] 'Ρόβριον /cat τον Άκίλιον [άπό^ρα^ον άνα#είναι εν] τ]6πωι δημοσίω [και ε'πι^ανει] προκείμεν[ον, ου αν πλείστοι πάρα-] σ]τ€ΐχωσιν [των πολιτών,] και κατ* ενιαυτον [iv τη εκκλησί-] α] άναγορεύ(ε}σθαιεδοξεν. Έπι ύπάτ(ω)ν Ποπλ[ίου 'Ροτιλί-] ου] Ποπλίου υίοΰ και [Γν]αίου Μαλλιού Γναίου υιού, [στρατηγού κα-] τα] πόλιν Λευκίου [- -]ωνίου Λευκίου υιού, [επι δε των ξένων - -] ,J Ποπλίου υίοΰ, [ως δε *Αστυπαλαιεις] άγουσιν επι [Φίλε] ταύρου του [ , εδοξε] πίνακα συμμαχίας άνατε^ναι, πρεσβεύσαντος ' Ροδοκλεους του * Αντιμάχου] και (τ}αύτης (της) συμμαχίας δοθήναι τω δήμω [τω 'Αστυπαλαιεων πίνα-] κα] κατά δόγμα συγκλήτου.

Β. Foedus (Space of three lines) [-------τω δήμω τω] ['Ρωμαίων και] τω δήμω τω * Αστυπαλαιεων ειρήνη και [φιλία] [καϊ συμμαχία] έστω και κατά γήν και κατά θάλασσαν [εις τον α-] [πάντα χρόνον] πόλεμος δε μη έστω. Ό δήμος [ό * Αστυπαλαιεων μη δι-] [ιέτω τους] πολεμίους και ύπεναντίους [του δήμου του 'Ρωμαίων] [διά της ίδια? χώρας και ής αν ό δήμος ό Αστυπαλαιεων κράτη δη-] [μοσ] [s·] in line 10 makes it reasonable to believe that whatever was mentioned after οσ[- - should be either the subject of ώσιν in line 11 or otherwise connected with the οπω[?] clause.2 But the key words are missing. Buckler and Calder restored δσ[α re φηφισθήναι] in line 7 and completed lines 10-11 as follows: [2Μλλ]α? αυτοκράτωρ σνν€χώρησ€ν νν δπω[ς eV ι ] [ση αύ]τοΐς τοΐς νόμοις αιρίσ^σίν τ€ ώσιν [κυρία]. Robert objected, for on historical grounds "all that Sulla permitted them to be voted" was not possible. He had not been in Tabae and could hardly have given the city permission to vote anything at the time of the resistance it offered to Mithridates. Thus Robert proposed οσ[α τ€ φιλάνθρωποι ? for line 7 and restored lines 10-11 in quite a different fashion: [27υλλ]α? αυτοκράτωρ συν€χώρησ€ν νν δπω[ς ταύτα] [in* αύ] τοΐς τοΐς νόμοις alpeoeoiv τ€ ώσιν [κύρια]. Bean disapproved of this and felt that lines 10-11 should be completed in such a way as to allow the city to make its own laws and decisions: [JCuAAJas" αυτοκράτωρ συν€χώρτ]σ€ν νν δπω[ς κύριοι] [£φ9 αύ]τοΐς ( ?) τοΐς νόμοις αίρέσζσίν τ€ ώσιν [χρησθαι]. And Klaffenbach was not satisfied. He felt sure that Wilamowitz was right in suggesting δσ [α τ€ ίτταθλα της] | for line 7, and accordingly he followed this up in lines 10-11 with a tentative restoration: [A'uAAJas· αυτοκράτωρ συν€χώρΎΐσαν νν δίΐω[$ οφ*] [4αυ]τοΐς τοΐς νόμοις αιρ4σ€σίν τ€ ώσιν [πάσαι?]. Maier later agreed substantially with Klaffenbach. But no one was happy or satisfied with any of these suggestions. It would appear that the main source of difficulty after the re-examination of the stone by Buckler and Calder is the assumption that €πα0λα or some similar word must be restored in line 7. Such a word must carry over to the ο7τω[?] clause and the verb in line 11, a combination of words and phrases not ordinarily found. One does not usually speak of "privileges" in connection with "laws" and "policies." A different subject, therefore, must be found, and it is submitted that villages is that subject. From an examination of the concessions made by Sulla to other cities at about the same time, 2

See the S.C. de Stratonicensibus (No. 18), 11. 50-52, and the 5.C. de Asclepiade (No. 22), 11. 16-18.

102

SENATUS CONSULTA

it can be seen that he had no objections to the granting of villages, districts, or even revenues to loyal cities of Asia Minor. Examine the following, for example. 1. S.C. de Stratonicensibus (No. 18), lines 53-56: χωρία [κώμας λιμένας προσό\δους τε τών] πόλεων, ων Λεύκιος Κορν [ήλιος ΖΊίλλα? αυτοκράτωρ | της τούτων] αρετής καταλογής τ€ ε[νεκεν προσώρισεν συνεχώρη\σεν, όπως τ] αΰτα αύτοιςεχειν εξ[ηι· κτλ. Compare lines 93~97 a n d 102-4. 2. S.C. de Thasiis (No. 20), lines 13-16 of E: as* τε προσόδους της τούτων άρ[ετής και καταλογής ένεκεν από συμβουλίου γνώμης] | Λεύκιος Κορνήλιος [Σύ] λλας αύτοκρ [άτωρ τοις αύτοΐς συν] | εχώρησεν ν πόλ [εις χωρί] α και ύ [πάρχοντα αύτοΐς (?) ] | At/xevas* κτλ. 3· S.C. de Oropiis (No. 23), lines 19-23: eVi εν τώι της μισθώσεως νόμωι αύται at Ι χώραι ύπεξειρημεναι είσίν, ας Λεύκιος Σύλλας θεών αθανάτων ιερών τεμενών | φυλακής ένεκεν συνεχώρησεν {ύπεζειρημεναι είσίν}, ταύτας τε τάς προσ\όδους, περί ων άγεται το πράγμα, Λεύκιος Σύλλας τώι θεώι 'Λμφιαράωι πρ(ο)>σώιρι\σεν (!), κτλ. Thus it is possible to suppose that Sulla had also granted Tabae the control of villages or districts. These are in no sense cities and have nothing to do with a confederation of any sort. Some support for this view is to be found in the following clause of the decree (11. 12-13), where we see that Tabae had been given permission to fortify some (nearby) place called Thyessos. One may assume that, despite the advantageous position Tabae occupied in the deep mountainous retreat of central Caria, it still felt the need of ad­ ditional fortifications outside its immediate area. It was concerned for its future military security and may have asked Sulla for the control of villages that it considered important from a strategic point of view. Or these villages may have defected to Mithridates and thus were stripped of their freedom as punishment. In any case it appears reasonable to assume that Tabae was given control of villages in the area.3 With villages for the subject of the verb in line 11, the possibility of restoring υπήκοοι at the end of that line is introduced. And the use of that word in lines 16-19, column 1, of the letter written by Dolabella to the Thasians (No. 21) makes the possibility almost a certainty. Lines 7-11 of our decree may then be translated: " . . . , and whatever villages L. Cornelius Sulla imperator granted to them, after consultation with his consilium, for the sake of their courage and honor, that these villages be subject to them, to their laws, and to their policies." Tabae enjoyed a privileged position under R o m a n rule, and the present decree is not the only piece of evidence to illustrate it. A short dedication set up in R o m e has been known for some time. 4 3 Robert thought that συνεχώρησεν by itself was not sufficient to convey the meaning of attributing territory to Tabae; he believed that προσώρισεν would also be necessary in such a case. But a passage (quoted above, no. 3) from the S.C. de Oropiis, 11.19-23 (cf. 11.25-27), seems to show that συνεχώρησεν alone could be enough. See Sherk, op. cit., p. 299. 4 G. Gatti, Notizie degli Scavi di Antichita, 1887, pp. 110-11, and ibid., 1888, pp. 134 and 189 (I.G., XIV, 695-96 b; I.G.R.R., I, 63; C.I.L., I2, 730 b; C.I.L., VI, 30922 b; J. Robert and L. Robert, op. cit., no. 4, p. 96); cf. Magie, op. cit., II, 954-55 and 1090.

103

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Ό δ^μ,ο?] 6 Ταβηνών φ£λ[ος] και σύμμαχος 'Ρω[μαί]ων. Unfortunately we cannot tell whether this dedication dates from a period soon after 167 B.C. (the war against Perseus) or from the age of Sulla.

104

18 SENATUS CONSULTUM DE STRATONICENSIBUS

BIBLIOGRAPHY. L. Ross, Kleinasien und Deutschland (Halle, 1850), p. 104; C. T. Newton, Discoveries at Halicarnassus, Cnidus and Branchidae, II (London, T 863), 75; Le Bas-Waddington, Voyage archeologique en Grece et en Asie Mineure: Inscriptions, III (1870), nos. 543-44; O. Benndorf and G. Niemann, Reisen in Lykien und Karien (Vienna, 1884), p. 155; Ch. Diehl and G. Cousin, B.C.H., 9 (1885): pp. 437-74; S. Bases, Έφ. 'Αρχ. i886, pp. 42-48; P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Gottingen, 1888), no. XVI, pp. 24-31; Th. Reinach, Mithridate Eupator, Roi de Pont (Paris, 1890), no. 18, pp. 467-70; W. Dittenberger, O.G.I.S., II (1905), no. 441; E. Taubler, Imperium Romanum, I (Leipzig, 1913), 158-59 and 457-58; Abbott-Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton, 1926), no. 17, pp. 272-76; H. Horn, Foederati (Diss., Frankfurt, 1930), p. 72; L. Robert, Etudes Anatoliennes (Paris, 1937), pp. 520 and 561-62; T. R. S. Broughton, "Roman Asia," in T. Frank, An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, IV (Baltimore, 1938), 517, n. 86; S. Accame, II dominio romano in Grecia dalla guerra acaica ad Augusto (Rome, 1946), p. 92; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), I, 235, II, 1112-13, n. 9; Lewis-Reinhold, Roman Civilization, I (New York, 1951), no. 134, pp. 337ff.; J. Robert and L. Robert, La Carie, II (Paris, 1954), 98-101; F. Papazoglou, R.E.G., 72 (1959): 100-5; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 68.

DESCPJPTION. This decree has been engraved on the wall of the Temple of Hecate at Lagina in Caria. Small fragments of it were first published by Newton (Frag. E), Benndorf and Niemann (Frag. G-H), and Le BasWaddington (Frag. O), but with the discovery of many more fragments Charles Diehl and George Cousin assembled all of them and attempted a reconstruction of the entire text. They saw that it was spread out over five parallel columns, that the extant fragments represented parts of thirteen stones or blocks, and that the sides of the columns did not, of course, agree with the sides of the blocks. Thus Fragment A is all that remains of block A in column one, and, while much of Fragments B1"2 is extant, the first half of block Β ( = B! ) contains part of the text in column one, and the second half ( = B2), part of the text in column two. (For the arrangement of the blocks and the columns see the revised plan in Viereck, op. cit., p. 24.) The document begins with a letter of Sulla to the city of Stratoniceia, followed by another letter introducing the decree. At the end of the decree is found a local decree of the city of Stratoniceia which authorizes the engraving of a list of those cities which recognized the inviolability of the Temple of Hecate. Part of this local decree and parts of the list of cities are extant but are not

10 5

81 B.C.

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

reproduced here. They can be found in the publications by Diehl and Cousin and by Dittenberger. The fragments containing our decree show some peculiarities worthy of mention from an epigraphical point of view. In the first place the beginnings of lines are indented in a rather unusual way, and we have tried to preserve this indentation in the text. Fragment B 2 contains a good example, for in it we find the beginnings of lines 15 and 17 forming the extreme left margin of the text with other lines indented from one to seven letter spaces. Secondly, the stones were originally joined so carefully and fitted together so smoothly that lines of text could be engraved both above and below the horizontal line formed by the joining of two stones. For example, stone Η rests on top of stone K, and the upper half of the word Στρατονικεΰσιν (Ι. ι ο ί ) is engraved on stone Η and the lower half on stone K. Thirdly, at the bottom of stone K, to the right of and one line below οΰτως γίν[ω]νται (Ι. 112), is found a solitary 'Αγαθ-η τύ[χτ)] engraved in different characters from those of the decree. This means that below it was a different inscription and that line 112 marks the bottom of that particular column (the third one according to Diehl and Cousin and Viereck), and probably of all five columns belonging to the senatorial decree.

Frag. AB1

[Λεύκιος

Κορνήλιος

Λ] ευκίου

[δικτάτωρ Στρατονι]κεων [ουκ άγνοοΰμεν

υμάς]

[παντι καιρώι

μένους

[τε καϊ παντοδαπούς] [πραγμάτων

α [ν]

πόλεις

[τάς της Ελλάδος Frag. B 2 C'

Λεύκιος

Κορ [νήλιος

Στρατο[νικεων πρεσβευταΐς Λεύκιος

Κορνήλι

συγκλήτωι 20

άρχουσι

ύμ[ετεροις

Φονδάνιος

[υίός

Γαί[ου

υίός

] χαίρειν]

υπό συγκλήτ]ου

υίός Σύλλας

/c

και πρ [ό] ς

δικτ] άτωρ

/?ουλψ δήμωι

το γενόμενον

συ[νεβουλεύσατο

προς

-

Έπαφρόδιτος

προ ήμερων

'Απριλίων εν τω [ι κομετίωΐ' Φάννιος Γαίου

καιρώι

πεπρ] εσβευκότας

Έπαφρόδιτος

[ος Λευκίου

Ιδιωτικούς

τε

Σύλλας

πολλούς

δημοσίων

και τους

και iv τώι του πολε]μου

[τάς άλλα? της 'Ασίας

τ€τηρηκότας τώι iv τηι

αδεδεγμενους

κοινούς]

!]ι>€[κ€ΐ> 7τ]/30? ημάς εύνοιας

[και χάριτος,

iv

κα] ι δια ταύτα κίνδυνους

] καϊ τ[ούς

[φιλίας

καϊ

πρώτους

ύπερ των ημέτερων

προθυμό]τατα

[

χαίρειν

7τι'[σ]τιν είλικρινώς

[εν τε τώι προς Μιθραδά] την π [ο] λεμωι

ίο

δήμωι

ν ήγεμ [ον] ίαν πεποιηκότας

την προς ή]μάς

\^Ασίαι άντιτεταγ

Έπαφρόδιτος

βουληι

δια 7τρο [γ] όνων πάντα, τα δίκαια

[πρό? την ημέτερα] 5

[υίός] Σύλλας άρ[γο]υσι

δόγμα

τοΰτο

δικτ] άτωρ

εξ κ α ] λ α ν δ ώ ν

γραφομενωι

παρήσαν

-

--

.

Περί ων Στρατονικε]ΐς

Γ]άιος

Γ]άιος εκ Χρυ~

σαο [ρέων]

Παιώνιος Ίερ^κλέους,

ΐθ6

-

1

[παρεδωκα.

SENATUS

25

CONSULTA

* Εκαταίος

77α [

Διονύσιος

πρ€σβ€νται

συμ[φώνως Frag. D

]

Ε[

[άξιοΰντες

και ακολούθως

συνήδεσθαι

[του 'Ρωμαίων 30

[δπως

χρυσοΰν

τώι Στρατονικεων

εν βελτίονι στεφανον

κα]ταστάσ€ΐ

[δικτάτορι

Λευκίωι

φαίνηται

[επεί τε ο δήμος

[δεινότατα 4θ

όπως]

ποιήσαι

του]

συγκλήτωι

εξήι ύπερ της

Λ] ευκίου δήμωι

τών εν τηι *Ασίαι,

υίώι ΖΊίλλαι

προς τον δημον

ότε Μιθρ]αδάτης

προείλετο

[επει δε ό jSaaiAeu? επί την πόλιν

ν[ίκ]ης

φιλανθρώπως

Έπαφροδίτωι κεχρήσ[θ]αι·

της είρήν] ης συνετήρησεν

και φιλίαν]

ετυράννευεν,

τηι

'Ρωμαίων,

Κορνηλίωι

εν τ ώ ι καιρώι

[εΰνοιάν τε και πίστιν [και πρώτος

ιακοσίων,

Στρατονικεων]

δήμου

eTi/ar

δ]

του δήμου

[όπως τε το λοιπόν

φηφίσματι]

πάρα. της ι] δίας πόλεως

τ€ iv τώι Καπετωλίωι

[και της ηγεμονίας 35

εποιή]σαντο

επί τώι τ ] ά δ τ ^ ό σ ι α πράγ [ μ α τ α τ ] ου

[avafleiyai εζήι από ταλάντων [θυσίαν

λόγους

την

τον

ιδίαν

'Ρωμαίων

εν

αύτ[ήι]

άν]τιτετάχθαι· επήλθεν,]

ελών δ ' εκράτησ

[ε] ν

[ Frag. Ο

]

[

Λευκίωι δικτάτορι εϋνοιαν

υίώι 27ιίλλαι] ]

[συνετήρησεν

και πί[στιν]

δια πράγματα πόλεμον τηι

Λευκίου

επι[τάξαντι

[κ]αι επει ο δήμος 45

Κορνηλίωι

και συμμαχί[αν

« [ α τ ά τ]ήν επο [ίησε,

βασιλικήι

άει την ύπάρχουσαν

προαίρεσιν

προς τον δημον [την εκείνων

κα] ι τον ίδιον δη [λώσας

β[ι]αι

και

αύτώι]

δυνάμει

θυμόν

[

τον 'Ρωμαίων,

διοικήσας,

και

προθυμότατα

τ α ΐ] Μιθραδάτηι] άντετάχθη]

-

V " "J ,, Frag.Ε 5ο

[δικαίοις

τε κ]αι νόμοις

[το επάν]ω,

όπως

και εθισμ[οΐς

χρώνται,

[του του πο]λεμου

ένεκεν,

[δους τε τών] πόλεων, 55

[της τούτων]

αρετής 'Εκάτης

[λοΰ τε τι]μώμενον [το τε τεμεν]ος, 6ο rag. C2F

όπως

ων Λεύκιος καταλογής

δώι,

άποδοθήναι

κομίσωνται

107

του-] άνεδειζαν]

χωρία

[κώμας

λιμένας

προσό-]

Κορν [ήλιος Σύλλας τε ε[νεκεν

αυτοκράτωρ]

προσώρισεν

συνεχώρη-]

εζ[ήΐ']

επιφανεστά[της

τοΰτο

και μεγίστης

άσυ[λον αύτοΐς

τώι άρ]χοντ[ι

θεάς,

εκ

πολ-]

φροντίσηι,

περί τε τών

ύπάρχηι·] εν τώι πολεμωι,

όπως]

τ ] ώ ι εις '*Ασίαν πορευομενωι

ΐνα φρο [ντίσ] ηι και επιστροφήν

αύτοΐς

εχρών-]

εποίησαν

και πολλα[

[περί τε τών ά]π[ολωλ]ότ[ων η σ[ύγ]κλ[ητος

οΐς

ώσιν Κεραμον.

[σεν, όπως τ ] α υ τ ά α υ τ ό Γ? εχειν [το ιερόν της]

Ιδίοις,

δν προς j8ao[tAea Μιθραδάτην

[όπως τ ] α ύ τ α 7raWa κυρία ασόν τε. ?] Οεμ.ησσόν,

τοΐς

όσα τε [φηφίσματα

ποιήσηται,

τους τε

[λ]οιπών

όπως τά

αιχμαλώτους

ΐνα τύχωσι

τών

εντολάς

εμφανή

δικαίων

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

65

όπως τε πρεσβευταΐς παρεσομενοις

τοΐς παρά Στρατονικεων

εκτός του στίχου

περί τούτου του πράγματος Στρατονικεων 70

τους πρεσβευτάς συμμάχους

χάριτα

Λεύκιος

Κορνηλι

[εποιήσατο, [παρ]ά

ται λόγους

είναι 'Ρω]μαίοις

των *Ασίαν την τε 'Ελλάδα πρεσβευ

την τε φιλίαν

τον 'Ρωμαίων

διά τέλους

[τε] is leibereis postereisque eorum legatos venire mittereque liceret.////Uteifque Q . Lutatius M. Aemilius co(n)s(ules) a(lter) a (mbove)] sei v(ideantur) e(is), litteras ad magistratus nostros, quei Asiam, Macedoniam provincias optinent, et ad magistratus eorum mitt [ant senatum velle et] aequom censere ea ita fieri, i(ta) u(tei) e(is) e r(e) p(ublica) f (ideve) s(ua) v(ideatur). C(ensuere).

Έπι

ύπατων

Κοίντου

Κοίντου Μάρκου

υΐωνοΰ

Λυτατίου

Κοίντου

Λ(έ)πφδου,

στρατηγού

Κορνηλίο[υ ΣισΙννα,

μηνός

Μαίου. ένδεκα

Λυτάτιος

καλανδών

Κοίντου

υίόν Κλαζομενιον, πλοίοις

δε κατά πόλιν

Λυτάτιος 'Ιουνίων

Λευκίου

Κόιντος

Ειρηναίου εν τοις

Κόιντος

Φαβεριος

κίου υιός Ποπλι(Χ)ία, Φιλίνου

ΑΙμ [ιλιου

καϊ επί των ζενων

Κοίντου

υιός Κάτλος

ύπατος

Πετίλλιος

Τίτου

υιός Κάτ(λ)ος Πολύστρατον

τον γεγονότα

παραγεγονεναι

εργασίαν

iv κομετίωι.

υιός Σεργία,

συγκλήτωι

Πολυάρκου

Μενίσκον

και πιστην

του

Περί

εποιησατο

Κόιντος

Ά

[σκληπιάδην] Μεν(ι)σκον

υίόν Μιλή [σιον

'Ιταλικού

δημοσίοις

t

ε [ν] αρχομένου,

πράγμασιν

.]

τούτους

τοις

ημετερ[οις

εις τάς πατρίδας

άπολΰσαι

-

εαυτόν κατά το τ(τ})ς

βούλεσθαι,

ων

υίόν Καρύστιον,

Θαργηλίου

τοις

παρησαν /leu-]

υιός Σεργία.

ύπατος λόγους

του πολέμου

επανδρον

Γραφομενωι

Γάιο[ς

παρεσχηκέ-] ναι, τούτους

Λευκίου

\εύσατο\

Λεύκιος 5

καΐ Μάρκου

υίοΰ]

συνεβουλ προ (η)μερών

υιοΰ Κάτλου

υίοΰ]

εάν αύτω

συγκλήτου

φαίνηται,

όπως

δόγμα ύπερ

των καλώς

πεπραγμένων

ύπ*

α υ [ τ ώ ν και άνδρα-] γαζβη^μάτων

εις τά δημόσια (π}ράγματα

γενηται' Φιλίνου ίο

Πολύστρατον

υίόν Κλαζ

Πολυάρκου

γεγονότα τη(ν εργασίαν ημέτερο

126

καταλογή

ούτως εδοξεν

[- -] α υ τ ώ ν 'Ασκληπιάδην

[ομενιον,]

υίόν Καρύστιον,

Μενίσκον,

και φί[λους αγορεΰσαΐ'

τά ημέτερα

περί τούτου του πράγματος

άνωθεν

Μενίσκον

δε Θαργηλίου

Ειρηναίου

υίόν

Μιλησιον

νν άνδρας καλούς

καϊ

τον

αγαθούς

προσ-]

σ)ύνκλητον καλ(ην)

καϊ τον δημον και επανδρον

[ις γεγο] ve'vai,

τον * Ρωμαίων

καϊ πιστην

διαλαν/^άνβιν την

τοις δημοσίοις

πράγμασιν

τούτων τοις

SENATUS

δι? η(ν)

CONSULTA

αίτίαν

την

σύνκλητον

κρίνον,

πατρίσιν

ωσιν

ε'ί rises' €ΐσφ[οραί

ε] κ τών

είσπεπραγμέναι

είσιν μετά

υπαρχόντων

αυτών

τών ημετέρων

αλειτούργητοι

χάρ(ιν)

οίκίαι,

υπάρχοντα

πραγμάτων άκέραιον 15

θη·

ει τέ τις

εκγονοί

τε αυτών

πραγμάτων

και

το τούτους

{τ}

πέπρανται

μετά

τών ημέτερων

τών

χάριν

ταΐς

πραγμάτων

άποδοθώσιζγ)

το εκ της πατρίδος

όρμησαι,

iv

άνείσφοροι

τών δημοσίων

όπως αύται αύτοΐς

ει τέ τινε{ι}ς αυτών

τέκνα

πάντων

όρμησαι,

άποκατασταθώσιν αγροί,

Οπως ούτοι

εαυτών

όπως

τών

δημοσίων

ταύτα πάντα αυτοί? εις

άποκαταστα-

προθεσμία

πραγμάτων

παρε(λ}ήλυθεν,

τών ημετέρων

αύτοΐς βλαβερόν

αφ'

ου εκ της πατρίδος

χάριν ώρμησα(ν},

τών

μη τι τούτο το

δημοσίων

πράγμα

yev^Tai

μηδέ τι αυτοί? δια ταύτην την αίτίαν έλασσον μεταπορεύεσθαι

πράσσειν

έξη-

ό(φ)είληται

μηδέ τι έλασσον

οσαι τε κληρονομιά

αύτοΐς

αύτοΐς η τοις

τέκνοις

αυτών παρεγένοντο,

όπως ταύτας έχωσιν ($)ιακατέχωσιν τέκνα,

εκγονοι

γυναίκες

τε αυτών

καρπεύωνταί

παρ* ετέρου

τε ·

οσα τε αν

μεταπορεύωνται,

αυτοί,

εάν τέ τι

πα­ ρ' αυτών τέκνων,

έκγόνων

γυναικών

τέκνων,

(έκγόνων)

εν ταΐς

πα­

τρίσιν κατά τους ιδίους νόμους επί 'Ιταλικών 20

εν τηι φιλίαι

απόντων

μετά

το της συνκλητου αρχατ^ς

Μάρκος

φαίνηται,

τ(ού)τους

γμα τόπον παροχην

τε τον ταμίαν

κελεύσωσιν προς

παραγίνεσθαι Μάρκος

127

Αιμίλιος

αυτών

ταύτα

όπως

δημοσίαι

όφείλωσιν

μισθώσιν

ύπατοι,

χαλκοΰν

φιλίας

τον κατά πόλιν

η προσόδους

Άοίζι,

όφείλωσιν

ο έτερος

η αμφότεροι,

εάν

και άποστέλλειν

εν τώι Καπετωλίω

ava^eivai

κατά το διάτατούτοις

/χισ^ώσαι άποστ^βί^λαι τε

πραγμάτων

άποστέλλειν έκγόνο[ις

ύπατοι,

εστίν, κατά

εις το τών φίλων διάτα^/χα άν€ν€χ^[ή-]

εάν τε περί τών ιδίων τέκνοις

γεγονότα

αί πόλεις

αρχόντων τέλους

κριτήρια

κριτήριον

δούναι

ξένια τε αύτοΐς

την σύγκλητον

όπως αύτοΐς, πρεσβευταΐς

έ(ξ}ήι

εάν τε

όπως εκεί το

ει τίνα

μη τι ούτοι δούναι

Αιμίλιος

τ [ ο υ ] τ ο ι ? τε πίνα(κα)

θυσίαν τε ποιησαι

πρεσβευτάς

όρμησαι

εί τίνα χρήματα

(Λ)υτάτιος,

α(ύ}τοΐς ναι φροντίσωσιν,

ού αν προαιρώνται,

και εξ ακεραίου

φυλάζωνται,

τούτων,

·

τών ημέτερων

yu/ηται·

αν ττοτ€ \ 4 σ ι α ν , Εϋβοιαν

επιτιθώσιν,

όπως τε Κόιντος 25

γίνηται'

οΐτινες

η έ(π)ι

μεμενηκυιών,

το εκ της πατρίδος

όπως

και αϊρεσις

ελευθέρα [ς] τών δια

μη τι εις ταύτα τά χρήματα

ημέτεροιt Εύβοίαι

κρίνεσθαι

τών πραγμάτων

άποκατασταθηι

δόγμα

όφείλωσιν,

μεταπορεύωνται,

εξουσία

εάν τε έπι πόλεως

περί τούτων

εις άκέραιον

έτεροι

τε αυτών

βούλωνται

κριτών,

του δήμου του ^Ρωμαίων

κρ(ι)τηριον περί αυτών

τε αυτών

γυναικών

αυτοί

τε]

τε παραγίνεσθαι

προαιρώνται,

αύτ[ών] τε

ό έτερος η

έξηι·

όπως

αμφότεροι,

τε Κόιντος

Λυτάτιος,

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

3θ

iav αύτοΐς φαίνηται, γράμματα προς τους άρχοντας τους ημέτερους, οΐτιν€ς Άσίαν, Μακ€δονίαν επαρχείας ($)ιακατεχουσιν, και προς τους άρχοντας αυτών άποστείλωσιν, την συνκ(}ς, Oliverio. 129-30 ΤΗΣΥΝ ΚΛΗΤΩ. 132-33 ΑΠΟΔΕΞΩΣΙΝ. 138 τε\ Radermacher proposed < τ ό > € . 139 ΚΑΤΑΓΓΕΛΑΙΝ. 140 ΕΣΟΥΣΙΑΝ. 141 AEKA (?), but Oliverio read AEKA. 142 BOYAHI. After eV τούτου του the space is empty to the end of the line. The phrase used here was supplied by Oliverio; S.E.G. has του (δόγματος).

COMMENTARY.

177

Of all epigraphical discoveries only the Res Gestae of Augustus

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

may be said to surpass the Cyrene Edicts as inscriptions that make significant con­ tributions to our knowledge of the political, social, and juridical history of Rome. N o Greek or Latin literary source mentions the existence of these documents, and for that reason they come not only as a welcome surprise but also as an outstanding example of how inscriptional evidence complements and corrects the literary tradition. The single most important observation to be made from a study of these documents is the fact that Augustus in 7/6 and 4 B.C. was clearly issuing edicts in his own right to the inhabitants and officials of a province that the Senate had been allowed to control ever since the division of the Empire in 27 B.C. Thus the statement of Dio (53. 32), that Augustus possessed an imperium superior to that of all the governors of the provinces, seems to be confirmed.1 And the manner in which he exercised that imperium maius in a senatorial province is worthy of note, for he did not issue his orders with the brusque finality of a general in the field but rather with a courteous deference to the Senate and a mild form of expression: " . . .until the Senate should reach a decision on this matter or I myself should find some better way, the future governors of Crete and Cyrene would seem to me to be acting in a good and fitting manner if t h e y . . . , " etc. (Edict 1,11. 12-14). It has been justly observed that Augustus used a style similar to that employed by the Senate in giving its instructions to Roman magistrates, a style at once familiar to senatorial officials and therefore perfectly natural and acceptable.2 One can issue orders and demand obedience by virtue of his imperium, or one can suggest a course of action and receive willing compliance by virtue of his auctoritas. The result is the same, obedience in both cases, but the attitudes are strikingly different. A direct order, of course, is sometimes necessary, but a nice appreciation of the difference between issuing an order and offering a suggestion makes an order more appropriate and its military directness less objectionable. Thus Augustus diplomatically combined personal auctoritas and military imperium to correct those matters in the administration of the provinces which came to his attention. 1 Wenger and Premerstein were convinced, but McFayden was not. Although the modem literature - on the prcblc7ix; corrected with the ::"periurz, ?v.^ zuct^r'tcs cf A^2"«ti.i«.ic ennrrrio'i*. there Are several articles that serve as excellent introductions to the various theories and controversies^ G. E. F. Chilver, Historia, 1 (1950): 408-35; V. Ehrenberg, A.J.P., 74 (1953): 113-36; L. Wickert, R.E., s.v. "Princeps," cols. 2270-78; Ε. Τ. Salmon, Historia, 5 (1956): 456-78. In addition one should consult J. Beranger, Recherches sur Vaspect ideologique du Principat (Basel, 1953), pp. 77ff. (reviewed by L. Wickert, Gnomon, 26 [1954]: 534-44); A. Magdelain, Auctoritas Principis (Paris, 1947), chap. 2 (re­ viewed by H. Last,_/..R.S., 40 [1950]: 117-23); and the posthumous work of P. Grenade, Essai sur les origines du Principat (Paris, 1961), passim. A new document of importance in this regard has been published by H. W. Pleket, The Greek Inscriptions in the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden at Leyden (Diss., Leyden, 1958), no. 57, pp. 49-66 ( = S.E.G., XVIII, 555). There is a very detailed commentary on it by Κ. Μ. Τ. Atkinson in the Revue Internationale des droits de Vantiquite, 7 (i960): 227-72, which is marred by the serious error she has committed in believing that the first document of that inscription is a part of a senatus consultum in a curtailed form. Further details are available in J. H. Oliver, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 4 (1963): 115-22. The document is No. 61 of the present volume. 2 H. Last, C.A.H., 11 (1936): 401, and De Visscher, Les edits, p. 47. Digest 16. 1. 2. 1: arbitrari senatum recte atque ordine facturos ad quos de ea re in iure aditum exit. Cf. also Digest 1. 16. 4. 4 and 40. 12. 27. 1.

178

SENATUS

CONSULTA

The Fifth Edict and the Senatus Consultum Livy (43. 2) tells us that in 171 B.C. envoys from Spain were introduced into the Roman Senate where they lodged formal complaints of extortion at the hands of the Roman magistrates in the province. The Senate, convinced of the truth of their complaints, instructed the Governor of Spain to set up a jury of five recuperatores, chosen from the Senate, for each separate complaint. Each accuser in turn could choose a patronus and through the recuperatores could institute proceedings to recover his money. These temporary commissions were made into a permanent board of recuperatores by the Lex Calpurnia of 149 B.C., with the penalty for conviction being the simple recovery of the money by the victim and nothing more. This was the origin of the first quaestio perpetua. Modifications of this court, mainly with regard to the penalty, were intro­ duced by the Lex Acilia of 123 B.C., the Lex Servilia, the Lex Cornelia of 81 B.C., and the Lex lulia of 59 B.C. The exact details of these laws and the various penalties prescribed by them have given rise to several controversies without final agreement.3 But there is no disagreement about the intolerable burdens and numerous inconveniences that the extortion court of the Republic imposed upon any provincial who approached it. The trials could be delayed for unusually long periods of time and could cause not only financial but also physical hardships for the provincials. Loopholes in the court's provisions also may have allowed the accused various means to have judges appointed who would be partial to his side and hostile to the other. In order, therefore, to remedy the defects of the old system and in particular to reduce the time necessary for the trial to the barest minimum, the present senatus consultum was passed. Not only did Augustus himself sponsor it but he also promulgated it in the form of an edict, two points which illustrate nicely the care and attention he gave to the fair and just administration of the provinces.4 Its provisions may be summarized as follows: Any ally of Rome who may wish to recover property of which he has been deprived is advised to present himself before a magistrate who has the power to convene the Senate. If this accuser does not wish to press capital charges, the magistrate will then introduce him immediately into the Senate and will appoint a patronus of the accuser's choice, who will addiess the Seriate on the matter. Oti that same day the magistrate will select by lot from the Senate (at least two hundred senators being present) four consulares, three praetores, and two other senators. N o senator chosen shall be seventy 3 See Th. Mommsen, Gesammelte Schriften, 1: 1-64 and 3: 339-55; J. L. Strachan-Davidson, Problems of the Roman Criminal Law (Oxford, 1912), 2: 75-152; J. P. V. D. Balsdon, Papers of the British School at Rome, 14 (193 8): 98-114; Sherwin-White, ibid., 17 (1949): 5-25; Henderson, loc. cit.; A. N . SherwinWhite, f.R.S., 42 (1952): 43-55; G. Tibiletti, Athenaeum, 31 (1953): 5-100; Brunt, loc. cit. For part of a new law belonging to the leges repetundarum see R. Bartoccini, Epigraphica, 9 (1947): 3-31 (A.E., 1950, no. 80) and G. I. Luzzatto, Archivo storico pugliese, 4 (1951): 28-41. 4

Usually the presiding magistrate attended to the communication of a senatus consultum to the per­ tinent city or state, more often than not with a covering letter. For a precedent to the present procedure Premerstein (Z.S.S., 48 [1928]: 482-83) mentions the S.C. de Bacchanalibus and suggests the Edictum Augusti de Aquaeductu Venafrano (H. Dessau, I.L.S., 5743) as "nichts anderes als die Mitteilung eines Senatsbeschlusses im Rahmen eines kaiserlichen Edikts." This is possible. It is interesting to note that Edict IV is called an Ιπίκριμα while Edict V is labeled a πρόγραμμα.

179

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

years of age or older, hold an active magistracy, or preside over a court of law. Other disqualifying provisions are included to insure the immediate availability of the senators to serve as judges in the matter. The plaintiff and the defendant in turn may reject a total of four judges within two days until five are left. These five, freed of all public duties except the public cult, will hear the case. Their majority vote rendered the verdict within thirty days. It is immediately apparent in this new procedure that the elaborate provisions made for the seleaion of the judges and the rules to be followed in case of the disability or death of any one of them are all calculated to guarantee smoothness and speed from the beginning to the end. And certainly the limitation of the new procedure to only those cases in which no capital charges are to be introduced is a detail which by itself would speed up the trial considerably. It had long been known from extortion cases men­ tioned by Tacitus and Pliny that a new procedure had been introduced after the Lex Iulia of 59 B.C., but not until the discovery of the present senatus consultum did we know its source. However, despite the fullness of our decree and the apparent precision of its provisions, it has generated a series of problems that, in the present state of our sources, are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to resolve. The most formidable question concerns the relationship of the new procedure to the previously existing form of prosecution for extortion. Does the new supplant the old completely ? To what extent can the new procedure be used to determine the nature of penalties in the old quaestio under the Lex lulia ? Everything hinges on a key phrase in our decree (11. 97-99): "If any of our allies, after the passage of this decree, wish to re­ cover money that has been extorted from them publicly or privately, without intro­ ducing a capital charge against the accused...." This vital and obscure phrase, χωρίς του κζφαλης €υθυν€(.ν τον ζίληφότα, is unfortunately capable of taking two directions. Without interpreting this phrase in the light of any other evidence, it appears at least possible that either capital or noncapital charges could arise in extortion cases, and not only before but also after the passage of this senatus consultum. The phrase therefore cannot be used to give positive proof about the nature of the penalty specified by the Lex Julia: V/hat is certain is that the new regulation?1 were concerned with ?. reform of procedure and not with penalty, and that they provided for a simple repayment of the amount of money extorted. Infamia of the condemnati was not, however, excluded. It is only when one asks the question, "What if the accuser does wish to include capital charges?", that a difficulty and a dilemma arise. The school of Premerstein (Oliverio and Arangio-Ruiz) believed that it was a question of two separate charges which by the nature of the situation were connected. A capital crime (e.g., murder) has been committed in connection with extortion. Only the charge of murder is a capital offense, while the extortion is a civil matter. The new procedure provides that the concurrent capital offense will be tried in the appropriate quaestio court but that the charge of extortion will be tried separately before the senatorial jury. Thus, in this view, the old quaestio de repetundis disappears and the existing laws on extortion apply without any change to the new senatorial procedure. And these laws, notably the Lex Iuliay did not know the capital penalty. The limiting clause in our

180

SENATUS

CONSULT A

decree is accordingly a very loose one and, being parenthetical, does not qualify any particular word or phrase. Thus, extortion was not in itself a capital offense and never carried the capital penalty. The contrary view, championed by Stroux, holds that the limiting clause makes good sense grammatically only when it is taken as qualifying άπαιτίΓι/ βουληθώσιν. This means that previously the extortion law (i.e., the Lex Iulia) had provided for capital penalties. Stroux, then, believed that the provincial accusers could decide whether they wished to prosecute by the old method, before the quaestio de repetundis with its repay­ ment of extorted money plus capital punishment for the condemnati, or by the new method, which was faster but provided only for the simple restitution of extorted money without a capital penalty being involved. Thus, for Stroux, the old quaestio court continued to exist side by side with the new senatorial jury. This separation removed the extortion charge from the criminal atmosphere with which it had been surrounded in the old public court, if the accusers wished to drop the criminal charges. Premerstein: The extortion charge itself was never criminal, and only when criminal offenses had been committed in conjunction with it could the penalty have been capital. The Lex Iulia carried no capital penalties for extortion. Under the new procedure the accuser could decide for himself whether he wished to press charges in the appropriate quaestio court (for murder, etc.) or before the new senatorial jury. One would satisfy his thirst for revenge: the other meant speedy recovery of his money. The old quaestio court for extortion disappeared. Stroux: The extortion charge was criminal and the Lex Iulia therefore contained provisions for a capital penalty in a case of extortion. The old quaestio court for ex­ tortion continued to exist and was used in those cases where the accuser desired to press the capital charges as well as those of extortion. If the accuser were to forgo the capital charges, the senatorial jury would try his case speedily. The one element common to both of these otherwise divergent views is the free choice allowed the provincial for deciding between the two alternatives, criminal or civil charges. De Visscher, however, would have none of this, for he could not believe that jtbe provincials had been allowed, to decide the type of jeopardy into which a Reman magistrate or citizen was to be placed. Accordingly, he felt that the Senate had had the choice about what would be the appropriate procedure to follow in each case. He rejected the view of Stroux and followed that of Premerstein, with this last reservation: He felt that the Senate would examine the charges and not the evidence when deciding whether it would try the case itself according to the procedure outlined in the senatus consultum or refer it to the quaestio court. Such was the purpose of the preliminary hearing in the Senate. If the charges were civil, with no intent to present matters that would involve the accused in a criminal suit, the five-man senatorial jury would try the case. But, if the Senate decided that criminal charges were involved, it would send the case to the public court.5 5 His view, that the Senate decides what would be the appropriate procedure, has not been generally accepted; see Last,J.R.5., 35 (1945): 98, and Oliver, Memoirs, pp. 108-9. He has also involved him­ self in a difficulty with his view of praeiudicium capitis in charges connected with those of extortion; see Sherwin-White, Papers of the British School at Rome, 17 (1949): 15-16.

l8l

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Then Sherwin-White, in his detailed and valuable account of the republican leges repetundarum, reached the conclusion that "the Lex Iulia brought under the extortion law certain offenses which hitherto had had no connection with it, and introduced a scale of punishments culminating in the capital penalty for extortion with violence." 6 Thus, to him, the limiting clause, as well as the regulations in lines 130-31, refer to charges other than extortion or to actual charges of extortion in "aggravating circumstances." He therefore would disagree with Premerstein about the old noncapital nature of ex­ tortion and would agree with Stroux, stipulating that extortion was or could become a capital offense only when it was "aggravated" by saevitia or other actions already labeled capital under other laws. It should thus be clear that the present senatorial decree is hardly the best kind of evidence to use in discerning the nature of the republican extortion court. Its provisions, of course, would be immediately obvious to any competent provincial governor, because he would be familiar with the existing judicial background. The decree assumes that this judicial background will be known to those for whom it is intended. One must therefore establish this background on independent evidence and then see how the present procedure fits into it. To work back from the decree is dangerous. When we turn from this backward look and examine the period after the introduction of the new procedure, we also find that difficulties arise. For example, when we read of extortion trials in the pages of Tacitus or Pliny, we quite naturally expect to find some similarity with the procedure established by Augustus in 4 B.C. And we are not wholly disappointed. However, the new procedure does not seem to have lasted very long. 7 A clear-cut example would be the case of Granius Marcellus in A.D. 15, recorded by Tacitus (Ann. 1. 74). Perhaps we could include the case of Caesius Cordus (Tacitus Ann. 3. 70), if his charge of maiestas actually were dropped. But it is clear that, in the majority of cases known to us from the literary sources, the new procedure of 4 B.C. was not used too often and did not last long into the first century. By Pliny's day, charges of extortion were usually complicated by or involved in charges of murder, perduellio, or maiestas. And De Visscher's effort to read the use of the new procedure into the cases known to us from the Trajariic era is not convincing. "Ry th^t rime wp find the entire Senate sitting in judgment on the accused, a procedure in keeping with the tendency of the Senate during the Principate to acquire jurisdiction over those matters w.hich during the Republic belonged to the quaestio courts. In fact, as most of the commentators have observed, the new procedure of 4 B.C. was a landmark in the beginning of the decay of the old republican courts and the development of senatorial jurisdiction.8 The full meaning and evaluation of the edicts from Cyrene have not yet been realized. Fresh evidence and the resifting of the old may clarify some of the obscurities. 6

Sherwin-White, Papers of the British School at Rome, 17 (1949): 25. De Visscher, Les edits, pp. 184-210, and Brunt, op. cit., pp. 198-206. 8 For the development of the criminal jurisdiction of the Senate see Th. Mommsen, Romisches Staatsrecht, II 3 , 1, pp. u8ff., and Romisches Strafrecht (Berlin, 1899), pp. 25ifF.; Premerstein, Z.S.S., 48 (1928): 527-28 (with further references); De Visscher, Les edits, pp. 184-86. For a list of senatorial processes de repetundis see the work of Bleicken, op. cit., app. I, pp. 158-66. 7

182

32 SENATUS CONSULTUM(?) DE HERAEO SAMIORUM ET ASCLEPIEO COORUM

A.D. 23

BIBLIOGRAPHY. P. Herrmann, Athen. Mitt., 75 (i960), no. 5, pp. 90-93, with Plate no. 3 (Beilage 38).

DESCRIPTION. Fragment of a stele of white marble, broken on all sides, the surface badly weathered. Height: 0.45 m. Width: 0.27 m. Thickness: 0.095 m. Height of letters: 0.014 πι. Found on Samos in the Palea Ekklisia, a small church now demolished.

W [ ]ΤΟ.Σ[

] ]

}\ΠΙΝΕΙΣΔΟ[ ] Γάιος Στ€ρτίνι\ος Μάξιμος κα[1 Γάιος *Ασίνιος ΙΊολλίων ύπατοι ?] ]αν προ Α €ΐ8ών Σεπτεμβρίων ] ] πρεσβευτών Κώων [ ] - - - - α]υτοί? 'Ασκληπιού ί[ερόν ] ] Ι "Ηρας 6 εύσεβεστα [τος ? ] κ]αταστάντων καθώ[ς - -] vacat ]τάπ ίερώι της "Ηρας τ [ ] ]v TCtH οικαιοτεραν [ ] ο]υ επιτυχεΐν π[ -] - - - δεισιδαιμονίας Λ[ ] της] πόλεως κ[ ]

]η= [ ]™τ[

] ]

Text by Herrmann except where noted. 1 [ σ] υνκ [λητ --(?), Herrmann, and perhaps [ κατά το δόγμα του σ\υνκ\λητου. η e.g., το παρ α]ύτοΐς, Herrmann. 9 άποκ]αταστάντων suggested by Herrmann. 13 Herrmann refers to ταύτώ δικαίω ταύτη τε δεισιδαιμονία in the S.C. de Aphrodisiensibus et Plarasensibus (No. 28), 1. 11.

is3

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

COMMENTARY. The mention of the sanctuary of (the Coan) Asclepius and the Temple of Hera on Samos led Herrmann to assume that the subject matter was connected with the general investigation of the asylia of Greek temples which Tiberius ordered in A.D. 22. Greek states at that time were ordered to send envoys to Rome with documents to prove to the satisfaction of the Senate that their privileges had been properly granted. The great number of the envoys and the multiplicity of their documents proved weari­ some and endless to the senators, and accordingly the matter was entrusted to the con­ suls. They were instructed to conduct the investigation and then refer their findings back to the Senate for final action. Appropriate senatus consulta were then passed.1 It was not until A.D. 23, however, that the Samians and the Coans requested the Senate to confirm the grants of asylia for their respective temples of Hera and Asclepius.2 The agreement of names and places in the Tacitean account of these proceedings with those in the present material cannot be accidental. The facts agree too exactly. Even the date of the present documents can be fixed as A.D. 23 by the fragments of the name in line 4, since almost certainly those fragments refer to C. Stertinius Maximus, the consul for that year.3 The subject matter concerns the confirmation of asylia for the temples. And the very fact that the present inscription was engraved on a stele and erected is sufficient proof that the Senate did in fact confirm that asylia. The historical background is therefore reasonably clear, but the nature of the document is another matter. It is included here among the senatus consulta only because there is a possibility that it might be part of a senatorial decree. Herrmann thought that such was the case, adding that it contained a reference to the decision of the consuls on the matter of the asylia. The consuls would have rendered their decision and then delivered it to the Senate. The Senate in turn would have issued the decree. The previous decision of the consuls just might be mentioned in lines 4 and following, where in line 5 a verb such as eypcufj] av or €π4γνωσ] αν or ςπέκριν] αν might have appeared. But the document cannot be identified as a senatus consultum positively. Quite often, however, consuls have been instructed by the Senate to perform some specific service and then report their actions to the Senate, which in turn issued a decree based upon those actions.4 This might hr.ve be?ii the cnse with thi«. dornrnent from Sarnos. It is at most, however, only a remote possibility. 1

r Cf. the letter of M. Antonius to Plarasa and Aphrodisias (No. 28). Tacitus Ann. 4. 14: If quoque annus legationes Graecarum civitatium habuit, Samiis Iunonis, Cois Aesculapii delubro vetustum asyli ius utfirmaretur petentibus. Samii decreto Amphictyonum nitebantur, quis praecipuumfuit rerum omnium iudicium, qua tempestate Graeci conditis per Asiam urbibus ora maris potiebantur. Neque dispar apud Coos antiquitas, et accedebat meritum ex loco; nam cives Romanos templo Aesculapii induxerant, cum iussu regis Mithridatis apud cunctas Asiae insulas et urbes trucidarentur. 2

3

See Herrmann, op. cit., pp. 91-92.

4

S.C. de Itanoram et Hierapytniorum Litibus (No. 14), 11. 74ff.; S.C. de Collegiis Artificum Bacchiorum (No. 15), 11. 61-64; S.C. de Stratonicensibus (No. 18), 11. 103-O; S.C. de Oropiorum et Publicanorum Controversiis (No. 23), 11. 1-4.

184

π

EPISTULAE

For epistulae in Part I see the following: ι Epistulae Spurii Postumii et Senatus Consultum 4 Epistula P. Cornelii Blasionis et S.C. de Ambraciotibus et Athamanibus 7 Epistula M. Aemilii et S.C. de Magnetum et Prienensium Litibus 8 Epistula P. Sextilii cum S.C. 14 Epistula L. Calpurnii Pisonis et S.C. de Itanorum et Hierapytniorum Litibus 18 S.C. de Stratonicensibus cum Epistula Sullae 20 S.C. de Thasiis cum Epistula Sullae 21 Epistula Cn. Cornelii Dolabellae 23 S.C. aliaque acta de Oropiorum et Publicorum Controversiis 26 Epistulae et S.C. de Mytilenaeis 28 Epistula M. Antonii ad Plarasenses et Aphrodisienses et S.C.

A. INTRODUCTION: OFFICIAL ROMAN CORRESPONDENCE DURING THE REPUBLIC

If by official Roman correspondence we mean letters sent by the Senate or magistrates of Rome to the officials of some foreign city or sovereign state, letters intended to com­ municate the policy of the Senate or magistrates on a particular point, then we must admit that our sources for the early Republic give us very little information.

In fact, such

letters do not appear even to have been mentioned before the wars with Carthage.1 The use of letters, of course, by educated men dates from the beginning of the Republic. 2 And Roman magistrates sent back to the Senate from foreign posts official letters in order to make reports, request instructions, or make suggestions.

Common practice.

But official correspondence between Rome and foreign cities does not seem to have been 1 It is not until the war against Philip that the literary sources begin to mention, regularly at any rate, the sending of official letters of the type we are considering. W e are told that T. Quinctius Flamininus sent many letters to the Greeks: Livy 35. 39. 4 (to the Thessalians), 35. 25. 5 (to the Achaean League); Polybius 18. 36 (to the allies in the war), 18. 6 (to Philip). Polybius (22. 4-5) mentions that he got the Senate to write to the Boeotians. And Appian Bell. Hisp. 8. 41 tells of sealed letters sent by Cato, the censor, to various Greek cities. Thereafter, the mentioning of letters becomes more common in the literary sources. The whole subject of official R o m a n correspondence during the Republic has been much neglected since the work by P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Gottingen, 1888). Although the number of actual letters that have been preserved on stone was small in 1907, Brassloff, R.E., s.v. "Epistula," cols. 204-10, wrote as if there were none at all. Little or nothing of value for us in this regard can be found in K. Dziatzko, R.E., s.v. "Brief," cols. 836-43, or even in J. Sykutris, R.E., suppl. V, s.v. "Epistolographie." H. Peter, Der Brief in der romischen Literatur (Leipzig, 1901), was not really interested in official correspondence as we have defined it. The account by AbbottJohnson on official documents and their preparation, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire, (Princeton, 1926), pp. 232-45, offers some information. More strictly on the Greek side, but often very useful for our purpose, are the contributions made by F. Ziemann, De epistularum graecarum formulis sollemnibus quaestiones selectae (Diss., Halle, 1910): (J. B. Welles, Royal Correspondence m the Hellenistic Period (New Haven, 1934); H. Koskenniemi, Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. (Helsinki, 1956). For the orthography, inflection, and syntax of the Greek letters see Viereck, op. cit.t pp. 55-79; T. Eckinger, Die Orthographie lateinischer Worter in griechischen Inschriften (Munich, 1892); C. L. Dottling, Die Flexionsformen lateinischer Nomina in der griechischen Papyri und Inschriften (Diss., Lausanne, 1920); B. Meinersmann, Die lateinischen Worter und Namen in den griechischen Papyri (Leipzig, 1927). Besides the standard grammars of Kuhner-Gerth (AusftihrlicheGrammatik der griechischen Sprache3, 2 vols, in 4 [Hannover, 1890-1904]) andE. Schwyzer (Griechische Grammatik, 3d ed., 2 vols. [Munich, 1959], with the Register by D. J. Georgacas, 2d ed., i960), in­ formation of value for our letters can be found in Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, 1957); Blass-Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, English translation and revision of the 9th and 10th eds., by R . W . Funk (Chicago, 1961): and E. Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemderzeit, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1906-33). 2 Dionysius of Halicarnassus (5. 6. 2) records that in the first year of the establishment of the Republic letters were delivered from the exiled Tarquins to friends in Rome; cf. ibid. 5. 7. 1.

186

EPISTULAE

common until the beginning of the second century before Christ. Then, as we shall see, Hellenistic models and procedures exercised considerable influence upon Roman letters. But only a comparatively small number of actual letters from the Republic has survived, none of them dating before the second century. This cannot be taken to mean that Rome did not make use of diplomatic correspondence before contact with the Greeks. The question must remain open. Under the Empire such correspondence was very common, since imperial epistulae and rescripta then became the normal vehicles for the creation of law and the communication of the imperial will to the cities and states within the provinces. Their numbers are considerable.3 But under the Republic, diplomatic exchanges of such important matters as war and peace, territorial rights, terms of treaties, and protests required more than mere correspondence. Personal con­ tact was indispensable. Hence the rise of legati.* The pages of Livy, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Polybius, and Appian are full of references to both Roman and foreign embassies. From the beginning of the Republic, and even earlier, in the time of the kings, they were and remained the chief instruments of diplomatic exchange. These envoys were not magistrates but functionaries chosen at Rome from among the senators to perform specific tasks. Whenever Rome wished to communicate officially with a foreign state, an embassy would be formed and dispatched with detailed instructions. A whole body of procedure and regulations developed around its use. In the course of the third century, however, Roman diplomacy gradually entered into a new phase. Territorial expansion, war with Carthage, and involvement with Illyria thrust Rome into the role of a world power. Although the wan with Carthage had made her aware of further possibilities in her political growth, and although she had conducted a war in 219 B.C. against the Illyrians, nevertheless she apparently had no real plans for eastern expansion. Then conditions changed. The suspicious actions of Philip V, the appearance of his fleet in the Adriatic, his friendly attitude toward Hannibal, and the germination of the fear in Rome that he planned to invade Italy contributed to the general distrust of his ambitions. When envoys from the Greek states came to Rome in 201 B.C. and reported Philip's agreement with Antiochus and the details of his Carian expedition, there was a change in senatorial feeling. War with Philip resulted, then victory at Cynoscephalae. Since military necessity required a peaceful and co-operative Greece during the war, Roman diplomacy took the form of what has aptly been called the patrocinium libertatis Graecorum, an outgrowth of an earlier tactic whereby weak states 3 For a collection of imperial letters see the work of L. Lafoscade, De epistulis aliisque titulis imperatorum magistratuumque Romanorum (Lille, 1902), which is now, of course, badly in need of revision. For a list of imperial constitutiones see R. Taubenschlag, Journal of Juristic Papyrology, 6 (1952): 121-42 ( = Opera Minora, II, pp. 3-28). 4

Anton von Premerstein in R.E., s.v. "Legatus," cols. 1133-41; G. Iacopi, in De Ruggiero, Dizionario epigrafico di Antichita romane, s.v. "Legatus," pp. 500-26. For the procedure followed in R o m e for the reception and accomodation of foreign envoys see Mommsen, Romisches Staatsrecht, III 3 , 2, pp. 1148-57.

187

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

were protected against strong states in order to strengthen one's own position. 5 This policy could gain new friends and lay the foundations of a lasting structure, a structure to be built along Roman specifications and designed to benefit Rome, not Greece. It is from this age of the wars against Philip and Antiochus that our first epigraphic examples of official Roman correspondence emerge. They were no doubt generated out of the new situations in which Rome found herself involved. Since Rome ap­ peared to be a permanent force in Asia Minor, this correspondence was preserved by the Greek cities. Any communication between them and Rome would serve as solid proof of loyalty and friendship to Rome or recognition of freedom. They preserved, of course, those letters which were favorable to their interests. It is instructive to note that during this early period—roughly from Cynoscephalae to Pydna—many of the letters reflected, directly or indirectly, the general Roman policy in the Greek East. Number 33 (Flamininus to Chyretiae) may have been designed to win the support of the wealthy classes in a former Macedonian dependency. Number 34 (M. Valerius Messala to Teos) grants freedom and immunity to Teos, an action that under the circumstances could have served as a beacon of Roman friendship shining to­ ward the Greeks of Asia Minor—a promise of things to come* Numbers 35 and 36 likewise may have been inspired by diplomatic motives. And No. 40 is especially inter­ esting, in that it contains a list of the charges brought against King Perseus just before the war against him. The possible motive was the securing of friends in Greece to the Roman cause. Its author very shrewdly addressed the letter to the Delphian Amphictyons. The early Roman letters were therefore used not only to communicate information of a factual nature but also, more importantly, to serve as diplomatic devices, as tools to influence public opinion. The rest of the letters on the whole are much more matter of fact and deal with local problems: the granting of privileges or benefits of various kinds, the restoration of land, magisterial decisions, arbitration, negotiations between two cities, the loyal actions of a citizen, and a suggestion about suitable honors for Augustus on his birthday. Official letters were also used to transmit the texts oisenatus consulta to Greek cities. Each has its own special value to us. And all of them are an invaluable and often unique source for republican history. In form they exhibit certain outstanding characteristics of official letters from the Hellenistic chanceries. In the early years, after the death of Alexander the Great, when the Hellenistic monarchies were engaged in their great struggles for power, they did not yet possess a full bureaucratic organization.6 The development of the various depart­ ments within each of the kingdoms was gradual, but by the second century B.C. they had s

Badian, Foreign Clientelae, pp. 81-83. Welles, op. cit., pp. XXXVII-XXXVIII. For the chancery in the SeleucidEmpire see E. Bikermann, Institutions des Seleucides (Paris, 1938), pp. 190-97. Thanks to the papyri the bureaucratic organization of Egypt is known in some detail: see A. Stein, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte una Verwaltung Aegyptens unter romischer Herrschaft (Stuttgart, 1915), and the work of F. Oertel, Die Liturgie (Leipzig, 1917). See also the remarks of M. I. Rostovtzeff, S.E.H.H.W., II (1941), 1078-81.

6

188

EPISTULAE

achieved a certain form and had reached a remarkable level of efficiency. One of these departments was the royal chancery, the staff of which cared for the official correspond­ ence and preserved copies of all the royal orders. In Syria the head of the chancery was called the επιστολογράφος. In the hands of these men there gradually appeared a form and a style of official letters. Diplomatic correspondence between the Hellenistic kingdoms was therefore well established by the end of the third century B.C. When the Romans entered eastern politics and began diplomatic relations with the Macedonian and Seleucid kingdoms as well as with Greek cities, they must have become rather quickly familiar with the formalism and style of the letters which they received from them. This was only natural, especially if they had little or no deeply ingrained system of their own in such matters. But, whatever the nature of earlier official Roman correspondence may have been, it now acquired and forever retained the general form and style of the Hellenistic models.

i. FORM OF THE LETTERS

The Salutation Although no two letters are precisely alike, they all tend to follow prescribed rules which custom and courtesy had established. The Hellenistic Greek letters, from the earliest examples, begin with the name of the sender in the nominative, then the name of the addressee in a combination of genitive and dative, and finally the word of greeting. The letter of Antigonus to Teos at the very end of the fourth century B.C. (S.J.G.3, I, 344, 11. iooff. = C. B. Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period [New Haven, 1934], no. 4) begins in this way: [Βασ]ίλζύς Αντίγονος Τηίων TTJL βουλψ καΐ τωι h-ημωι χαίρων. All the others, with minor variations, follow this pattern. It is exactly the form followed in the Greek letters written by Roman magistrates under the Republic and then taken up by the imperial secretariat. The style is formal, business-like, and .informative·. It is found in private Greek letters, and in time it became the form used everywhere in Latin letters.7 The sender is usually one person, generally a consul, praetor, or promagistrate (Nos. I, 4, 7, 8, 14, 21, 23, 33, 38, 43, 44, 47, 50, 55, 56, 65, 66, 69, 70), but may also be a dictator (Nos. 18, 20, 26, 49, 54), a triumvir (Nos. 28, 57), Augustus (Nos. 58, 60, 61, 64, 67, 68, 72, etc.), or a special figure of very high authority (No. 63, Agrippa). In two letters (Nos. 35 and 36) the brothers Scipio collaborate in writing. The addressee includes the name of the city in the genitive, followed by the specific city magistrates or other governing bodies in the dative. The name of the city usually appears immediately after the name of the sender (Nos. I, 8, 14, 18, 23, 26, 28, 33-36, 38, 43, etc.), but the order is not rigid. Sometimes the name of the city comes after the 7

Koskenniemi, op. cit., pp. 155-63.

i8g

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

city magistrates (Nos. 4, 21, 55, 61). In two cases the name of the city or recipient is itself in the dative (No. 39, Άμφικτίο [σι χαίρει]; No. 66, Θυατειρηνοΐς άρχου [σιβουλήι δήμωι χαίρειν]), but they are exceptions. The actual names of the magistrates or bodies vary from city to city in accordance with the local constitution. The usual com­ binations are άρχουσι βουλή δήμω (Nos. 14, 18, 23, 26, 28, 49,55, 56,58,60,67,68), βουλή και δήμω (Nos. 34-3*>)> a n d occasionally the names of the magistrates followed by rrj πόλει (Nos. I, 33, 38, 43). In four instances letters are addressed to organizations rather than cities: No. 39 to the Amphictyons, N o . 44 to the Dionysiac Artists, No. 57 to the koinon of Asia, and N o . 63 to the Argive Gerusia. The simple χαίρειν is sometimes expanded to χαίρειν λέγει (Nos. 4, 20, 21, 61), and it is then placed before the name of the city and the various magistrates. The single word, on the other hand, is regularly found at the end of the salutation. No. 26 (col. b, 8) has the unusual χαίρειν και ερρώσθαι.

The Formula Valetudinis The formula of health is rare in official Hellenistic correspondence and is not found earlier than the middle of the second century B.C. In private Greek letters it is common. 8 In the letter of Eumenes II to the priest of the Temple of Cybele (O.G.I.S., 315= Welles, op. cit., no. 56) it appears immediately after χαίρειν and has the form el ερρωσαι, ευ αν εχοι· κάγώ δε ύγίαινον. In official Roman letters it does not appear until the first half of the first century B.C., in the form ει ερρωσθε, ευ άν εχοι (No. 23). Whenever a writer employs it, he always puts it after χαίρων. In only one case, however, is the simple phrase alone used (No. 23), for ordinarily (Nos. 26, 28, 54, 58, 60) it is expanded to include a reference to the army. In the letter of M. Antonius to the city of PlarasaAphrodisias (No. 28, A 9-12) we have ει ερρωσθε, ευ άν εχοι· υγιαίνω δε και αύτος μ€τά του στρατεύματος. Sometimes this is abbreviated to merely κάγ[ώ δε μετά του στρατεύματος ύγίαινον], as in No. 26 (col. b, 8-9), or και αύτος δε μετά του στρατεύματος [ύγίαινον], as in No. 58 (I 4-5). Such a reference to the army is not found in the royal Greek letters, to my knowledge, and it may have originated with the P^crnans.

The Background and Motives for Writing

\

A wide range of circumstances prompted a Roman magistrate to send a letter to a Greek city. Most often it was because of information or requests brought to him by Greek envoys. Whenever this was the case, his letter naturally mentioned the fact, regularly after the salutation or the formula valetudinis, as in Nos. I, 4, 7, 14, 18, 20, 21, 26, 28, 34-36, 38, 39, 48-49, 55-58 III, 60-61, 64, 67-68, 70, 72, 74-75. It is in these sections of the letters that we learn the names of the envoys, where they met the Roman magistrate, what instructions they were given by the home states, and, occasionally, 8

Ibid., pp. 130-39.

190

EPISTULAE

what special honors might have been decreed for the magistrate. The magistrate, in turn, noted in his letter how well the envoys acted and spoke on behalf of their countries. All of this material soon became stereotyped in form and style, another diplomatic in­ heritance from the Hellenistic period. The expressions and vocabulary may be seen best by examining them as a whole. No. 4, 5-10: πρ€σβ€υταί Άμβρακιώται καΐ Άθαμάνες αύτοΐς σύγκλητον δω. 'Εγώ αύτοΐς σύγκλητον έδωκα.

εμοι προσήλθοσαν, Ιν

No. 7ι 3^-37 : πρεσβευται Μαγνήτες κα[ι Πριηνεΐς εμοί προσήλθοσαν δπως αύτοΐς σύγκλ]ητον δώΐ' τούτοις εγώ σύγκλητον eS[a>/ca]. No. 14, 9°~~92: [tojvres" Ίτάνιοι πρεσβευται και υμέτεροι προσηλθοσαν μ[οι δπ]ως αύτοΐς σύνκλητον δω. 'Εγώ αύτοΐς σύνκλητ\ο\ν έδωκα. No. 18, 17: πρεσβευταΐς ύμ[ετεροις [παρεδωκα].

το γενόμενον υπό συγκλήτ]ου

δόγμα τοΰτο

No. 21, 2-6: Μικάς Μικά υιός, Σα[- - -καθ* υίοθεσία]ν Εύρυμενίδου, φύσει δε Λυήτου, πρεσβευται υμέτεροι, άνδρες κα[λοι και αγαθοί και φίλοι παρά δήμου κα]λοΰ τε και αγαθού και φίλου συμμάχου τε ημέτερου, εν Θεσσαλο[νίκηι εντυχόντες μοι - - -]ον την σύγκλητον του δήμου του *Ρωμαίων ύπερ της ύμετερ[ας πόλεως δόγμα περί της εις τά δΐ7μ,οσι]α πράγματα καταλογής υμών εσχηκέναι. No. 26, 3~\ Ι 0 : Ποταμών Λεσβώνακτος, κτλ., οι πρεσβευται υμών, συνε[τυχόν μοι - - - και το φηφισμα υμών άπε]δωκαν και περί τών τιμών διελεχθησαν κτλ. No. 28, 12-43 : Σόλων Δημητρίου ($)μετερος πρεσβευτής, επιμελέστατα πεφ~ ροντ(ι)κώς τών της πόλεως ύμων πραγμάτων, ού μόνον ήρκεσθη επί τοις γεγονόσιν οίκονο[μή]μασιν, άλλα και ημάς παρεκάλεσεν εις το του γεγονότος ύμεΐν επικρίματος και δόγματος και όρκίου και νόμου άντιπεφωνημενα εκ τών δημοσίων δελτων εξαποστεΐλαι ύμεΐν τά αντίγραφα, εφ' οίς βπαι^σα? τον Σόλωνα μάλλον άπεδεξάμην κτλ. - -, ύμεΐν τε συνηδομαι επί τω εχειν τοιούτον πολείτην. No. 34» 4 - 1 τ '· Μένιππος ο τε παρ* Άντιόχου του /ίασιλβω? αποσταλείς προς ημάς πρεσβευτής προχειρισθεις και ύφ* υμών πρεσβεΰσαι περί της πόλεως, τό τε φηφισμα άνεδωκεν και αύτος ακολούθως τούτωι διελεχθη μετά πάσης προθυμίας' ημείς δε τόν τε άνδρα άπεδεξάμεθα φιλοφρόνως και διά την προγεγενημενην αύτώι δόξαν και δια την ύπάρχουσαν καλοκαγαθίαν περί τε ων ήζίου διηκούσαμεν εύνόως. No. 35» 3 - 7 : €ΐ/€[τυχόν] ήμΐν οι παρ ύμώμ πρέσβεις Διάς, Διης, κτλ., άνδρες κα\λοί κάγαθοι] οι τό τε [φήφ]ισμα άπεδωκαγ και αύτοι διελεγησαν άκολού[θως τοΐ]ς εν τώ[ι φη]φίσματι κατακεχωρισμενοις ούδεν ελλείποντες [φιλοτι]μίας.

igi

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

No. 36, 4-9: ενετυχο [ν ήμΐν ol παρ* ύμ] ών πρέσβεις Άγαμήδης καί [ - - άνδρε] ς καλοί κάγαθοί, ipT) τό τε [ψήφισμα άπεδω]καν καί αυτοί διελεγησ[αν άκολούθ]ως τοις ύφ* υμών δεδογμε[νοις, ούδεν ελ] λείποντας φιλοτιμίας κτλ. No. 38, 3-6 : ol παρ1 υμών άποσταλεντες πρεσβευταί τΗρυς Εύδώρου, [Δ]αμο[σθε]νης *Αρχελα τά τ€ γράμματα άπεδοσαν καί αυτοί διελεγησαν ακολούθως τοις iv αύτοΐς κατακεχωρ[ισ]μενοις μετά πάσης σπουδής, φιλοτιμίας ούθεν ελλείποντες, κτλ. No. 39» 2-8: [οι άπεσταλμε]νοι παρ9 υμών πρεσβευταί Αίακίδα[ς, ]ας, Μνασίδαμος, άνδρες καλοί καί αγαθοί, είσελ[θόντες ε]ίς την σύγκλητον, διελεγησαν περί ών αύτο[ύς άπεσ]τάλκειτε καί ή σύγκλητος απεδεζατό τε α[ύτούς φ]ιλοφρόνως καθότι προσήκεν παρ* ανδρών κα[λών] κάγαθών απεσταλμένους καί διήκουσιν επιμ[ελώς] κτλ. No. 48, 2-3: [Χ\αιρήμων Πυ[θοδώρ]ου υ[ίό]ς, ήλθ[εν ε]ν *Απαμήα ήρώτησεν τε [όπως] κτλ.

πολείτης ύμε[τερος,]

προς εμε

No. 49ι 4~7 : *Εγώ Άλεζάνδρω Ααοδικεΐ κιθαριστή, άνδρί καλώ καί aya^on καί φίλω ήμετερω, πρεσβευτή παρά του κοινού τών περί τον Διό[ν]υσον τεχνιτών τών επί * Ιωνίας κτλ., - - επετ[ρεφα κτλ. No. 55» 5 _ Ι Ι : Κλεΐτος Τίμωνος πρύτανις, Άσκληπιάδης Μάτρωνος ιερεύς, - - -, ομοίως τε καί πρεσβευταί υμέτεροι, άνδρες αγαθοί εμοί προσηλθον κτλ.

κτλ.,

No. 57» 5~6: ζντυχόντος μοι εν Έφεσωι Μάρκου 'Αντωνίου 'Αρτεμιδώρου κτλ. No. 58, 76-79 : οί πεμφθεντες πρεσβευταί ύφ* υμών Σέλευκος ναύαρχος εμος, Ήρας Καλλι[- -]ερως, Σύμμαχος, άνδρες αγαθοί, παρά δήμου αγαθού, φίλου συμμάχου τε ημέτερου, [άποδημήσ]αντες εις *Εφεσον προς με διελεχθησαν περί ών εΐχον τάς εντολάς- εγώ οΰν τους [άνδρας άπ]εδεξάμην εύρων φιλοπατρίδας καί αγαθούς καί τάς τι/χά? και τον στεφανον οευεγμαι, κτλ. No. 67, 5-7 : οί πρέσβεις υμών Διονύσιος β' καί Διονύσιος β' του % ενετυχον εν 'Ρώμηι μοι καί το φήφισμα άποδόντες κτλ.

Διονυσίου

No. 68, 23-25: οί πρέσβεις υμών Ίόλλας τε Μητροδώρου καί Μηνογενης Ισιδώρου του Μηνογενους συνετυχον εν 'Ρώμη μοι καί τό παρ* υμών φήφισμα άπεδοσαν κτλ.

A comparison of these expressions with those used in the corresponding sections of the letters from Hellenistic chanceries will prove to be instructive. In the letter of Antiochus II to Erythrae from the middle (?) of the third century before Christ (O.G.I.S., 223 = Welles, op. cit., no. 15, 11. 2-5) we read: Θαρσύνων καί Πυθής καί Βοττάς οί παρ υμών πρεσβευταί τό τε φήφισμα άπεδωκανήμΐν καθ* ο εφηφίσασθε τάς τιμάς, καί τον στεφανον

192

EPISTULAE

άνηνενκαν ώι εστεφανώσατε, κτλ. Lines 3-6 in the letter of the kings of Athamania to Teos from the end of the third century B.C. (Welles, op. cit., no. 35) contain the following: Πυθαγό [ρ] ας κ [α] ι Κλεΐτος οίάποσταλεντες πα [ρ* υ] μώνπ[ρ] ε [σ]βευται τό τ€ φηφισμα άπεδωκαν [καΐ αύ] τ [οι δι] ελεγησ [αν προς ημάς π] ε [pi] του συγχωρηθηναι παρ9 ημών την τε πάλιν και κτλ. And in the letter of Antiochus (son of Antiochus III) to Magnesia, dating from about the beginning of the second century B.C. (O.G.I.S., 232 = Welles, op. cit., no. 32,11. 2-12) we find the words: Δημοφών καϊ Φιλίσκος και Φερης οι παρ1 υμών πεμφθεντες προς τον πατέρα θεωροί άπεδωκαν και τό προς εμε φηφισμα και διελεχθησαν μετά σπουδής ακολούθως τοις iv τούτωι κατακεχωρισμενοις t κτλ. With these one should also examine the similar constructions in Welles (op. cit., no. 33,11. 16-20, no. 41,11. 2-3, and no. 64,11. 3-5). The general agreement between the phrases and the modes of expression in the Hellenistic letters and those in the Roman is striking. Diplomatic courtesy and chancery procedure had developed a pattern to be followed in the opening remarks of official Greek letters. The Romans took up this pattern, consciously or unconsciously, and used it in their own correspondence.

The Tenor of the Letters After the motives for writing have been described (usually involving a reference to Greek envoys and to the information brought by them) the main body of the letter begins. Because of the great variety of topics treated, the vocabulary and phraseology followed no standards or stereotyped model. The several topics demanded their own special models, but, of course, letters that were concerned either in full or in part with the same topic generally tended to employ a similar phraseology. An examination of the more important topics will be useful. The Granting of Privileges or Benefits Roman magistrates frequently made use of letters to grant or confirm privileges of various kinds upon cities, organizations, and individuals: Nos. 21, col. 2, 4-9; 26, col. b, 6-10; 34, 19-24; 35, 10-12; 44, 3-6; 49, Β 2-13; 53-54; 57, 12-19; 58. The common Koine and Hellenistic chancery worH for "privileges" was φιλάνθρωπα. In Latin it was beneficia (S. Riccobono, Fontes iuris Romani antejustiniani2,1 [Florence, 1941], no. 72,1. 15, letter of Vespasian to the Vanacini). Sometimes the phrase τίμια και φιλάνθρωπα is used to add the notion of "honors" (Nos. 34, 22; 57, 13-14; 58, 30), a combination found also in the Hellenistic letters (Welles, op. cit., pp. 369-70). When the writer wishes to emphasize that he will watch over or protect the privileges of a given community, he uses the verb σνντηρεΐν (No. 58, 80-81; cf. No. 52, 40). The granting of privileges was expressed by σνγχωρεΐν (Nos. 26, b 22; 49, Β 7; 57, 19) or διδόναι (Nos. 49, A 10, Β 7; 58, 66). In one case (No. 58, 90) a Greek is said to have been κεκόσμηται φιλανθρώποις. The most important of the privileges granted or confirmed were those of Roman citizenship (πολιτεία), freedom and autonomy (ελευθερία, αυτονομία), inviolability (ασυλία), immunity from compulsory public service (άλειτουργησία), exemption from

193

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

the payment of taxes or tribute [άνεισφόρία), freedom from billeting of any kind (άνεπισταθμεία), and freedom from military service (άστρατευσία).9 (On these see M. Segre in Rivista difilologia e d'istruzione classica, 66 [1938]: 260-62; De Visscher, Les edits, chap. IV.) M. I. Rostovtzeff(S.jE.H.H.H^., II [1941], 971-73) has shown that Roman policy in the first century B.C., and earlier, favored the establishment of an aristocratic or even an oligarchic rule in Asia and that Rome supported the people of such groups by granting them the privileges of immunity from taxation and exemption from special imposts. This policy tended to aggravate already serious economic difficulties in the Greek cities. Eventually Augustus (Cyrene Edict III) took some measures to correct the situation. The Restoration of Land In our earliest Roman letter (No. 33) Flamininus writes to Chyretiae that property which had been confiscated by Rome after the victory over Philip V was to be restored to the rightful owners. Lines 8-10: "Οσαι yap ποτέ απολείπονται κτήσεις έγγειοι καϊ οΐκίαι των καθηκουσών εις το δημόσιον το 'Ρωμαίων, πάσας δίδομεν τηι ύμετεραι πόλει, κτλ. Manius Acilius in his letter to the Delphians (No. 37) also refers to the restoration of confiscated property, and an appendix to his letter under the headings Τα δεδομένα χωρία τώι θεώι και τ [α] ι πόλει and "Ας έδωκε οικίας τώι θεώι και ται [πολβί] gives a detailed list of the owners of the lands and houses. And perhaps a similar return of confiscated property may have been the object of a letter of an unknown Roman magistrate concerning land in Mytilene (No. 51). The Roman policy in some cases was to confiscate property and then, at a later date, restore it (see J. A. O. Larsen, "Roman Greece," in T. Frank, An Economic Survey ofAncient Rome, IV [Baltimore, 1938], 311-13). Magisterial Decisions and Decrees The Roman magistrates frequently exercised their authority in the Greek East to render decisions on various legal matters that had been brought to their attention. In his letter to Dymae (No. 43) Q. Fabius Maximus states that in the matter of the destruction of the town hall with all its records and the enactment of laws contrary to the constitution granted by Rome to the Achaeans he has listened to testimony and has reached a decision. He finds a certain Sosus guilty and condemns him to death (1. 20): ενοχον etvat θανάτωι πα[ρ]εχώρισα. This appears to be the only passage in which such a verb is found. In line 3 of No. 66, which appears to be con­ nected with legal matters, the pertinent phrase is Δίκαιον etvoci νομίζω ν [μας - - ] . And Augustus, in his letter to the Cnidians (No. 67), shows a fine, diplomatic touch in the wording of his instructions (11. 37-39) to the city officials after he has found the accused, Tryphera, innocent: άλλα νυν ορθώς αν μοι δοκεΐτε ποιησαι τηι εμηι [περί (?) τού]των γνώ{ι}μηι

προνοήσαντες

και τά εν τοις δημ[οσίοις]

υμών όμολογεΐν

γράμματα.

The group of documents and passages in which we find the noun επίκριμα all relate to pronouncements or decrees of high Roman authorities. Appended to a letter of Marcus 9 The whole subject of the liturgies in the ancient world needs to be re-examined in a comprehensive work that will illustrate the history of the institution and relate it to the social and economic develop­ ment of the Graeco-Roman world. The material on the subject is enormous, but, with the exception of Egypt, it has never received adequate treatment as a whole.

194

EPISTULAE

Antonius to Plarasa-Aphrodisias (No. 28, Β 4; cf. A 5) is a senatus consultum which states that whatever honors and privileges the triumvirs have assigned or will assign to the city by their own decree (τω 18 ίω επικρίματι) are to be valid. Julius Caesar in his letter to the Pergamenes (No. 54, 3) says that [ύμΐν άντίγραφον τ] ου επικρίμα [τος άπεσταλκα του γεγονότος περί της χώρας - - ] . The heading affixed to the letter of P. Servilius Isauricus (No. 55, 2) reads: Έπίκριμα περί της ασυλίας. N o . 50 is a fragmentary docu­ ment of 67 B.C. which begins with the words Έπίκριμα Γνα[ίου Κορνηλίου Αεντόλου Ποπλίου υίοΰ] Μαρκελλίνο [υ - - - ] . And in the third of the Cyrene Edicts (No. 31) Augustus orders (11. 56-59) that those in Cyrene who have received Roman citizenship must perform the liturgies just as the Greeks do, "except for those to whom άνεισφορία has been granted, along with the citizenship, by virtue of a law or a decree of the Senate, τώι του πατρός μου επικρίματι η τώι εμώι. * Despite textual difficulties in this passage the intent of the last phrase is clear enough. But in the fourth edict, lines 68-69, we find: ών δ' ανά μέσον εκ τοΰ8ε του εμοΰ επικρίματος "Ε?(λην(ε)>ς κριταί δοθήσονται, κτλ. The noun έπίκριμα did not come into use by Roman magistrates until the first century B.C. Properly speaking, from the etymological point of view, it signifies decretum, a decree issued by a magistrate. But Augustus, in the passage just quoted from the fourth edict, uses it as if it meant edictum. The usual term for edict was διάταγμα.10 However, it has been noted that there was a certain amount of fluctuation or elasticity with such words in Latin terminology. 11 For further examples of the word έπίκριμα see the edict published by F. K. Dorner. Der Erlass des Statthalters von Asia Paullus Fabius Persicus, (Diss., Greifswald, 1935), 11. iff.; Josephus Ant. 14. 321 (a letter of Marcus Antonius in which is mentioned the phrase διατάγμασιν και κρίμασιν, where the last word may be a mistake for επικρίμασιν)] O.G.I.S., 669, 28, first century A.D.; P. Teb.2%6. 4 ( = Mitteis Chrestomathie 83, second century A.D.). The corresponding verb επικρίνειν was used by the Hellenistic chancery in the sense of "decide" or "render a decision," as can be seen in the letter of Antigonos to Teos (S.I.G.3, 344 = Welles, op. cit., no. 3,11. 29, 51-52, 60, and 108). In our documents the verb is also found in the letter of Octavian to Rhosus (No. 58, 72), the S.C. Popillianum de Pergamenis (No. I I , 18-19), and the S.C. de Collegiis Artificum Bacchiorum (No. 15, 63), in the last of which we learn that it had been decreed όπως προς Μάαρκον Λείβιον ΰπατον προ[σ]ελθωσιν, οΰτός τε €ΐτιγνώι επικρίνη οϋτως καθώς (άν) αυτώι εκ των δημοσίων πραγμάτων πίστεως τε ί8ία(ς) φαίνηται εδοξεν. Letters were therefore used in one way or another for the communication of magisterial decisions and decrees. Arbitration The Hellenistic kings had frequently acted as arbitrators in the many quarrels that arose between the Greek cities. In the course of the second century B.C. 10 J. Stroux and L. Wenger, Die Augustus-Inschrift auf dem Marktplatz von Kyrene (Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, 34, 2 [1928]), p. 25; see also L. Wenger, Die Quellen des romischert Rechts (Vienna, 1953), p. 430, n. 45, and, for the edict, pp. 407-14. 11

Cf. A. Passerini in Athenaeum, 15 (1937): 274, and De Visscher, Les edits, p. 40.

^95

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Rome began to supplant them in that capacity, the Senate emerging as the institution to which the Greeks directed their disputes. The Senate sometimes decided each of these while sitting in session (No. 9, 59-67), but it also made use of a second method whereby a senatorial commission was formed to hear the evidence and render a decision. A third method, which recognized the difficulties in making a just decision so far from the actual scene, was for the Senate to state the rule that was to be applied in the case and then to hand it over to some third party, a neutral city, for an investigation of the facts and the finding of a verdict (Nos. 7 and 14). In any event the two parties first dispatched envoys to Rome to present their cases to the Senate, and official letters were usually employed at some time either to send instructions to the parties or to communicate the final decision (cf. Nos. 4, 7, 9,10,14,15, 45). In No. 7, 61-63, for example, it is expressly decreed that the praetor was to write to the arbitrating state concerning possible penalties (cf. No. 14, 23-24, 89-97). Very often the letters are but examples of the common practice of using official sources to communicate senatorial decrees to Greek cities or organizations. It is interesting to note that each time the Senate acted as arbitrator between Greek cities the first thing it did was to take cognizance of the status that each city had at the moment of the submission of Antiochus III (see No. 7, 53-55). On the whole subject see the following works: E. de Ruggiero, L1'arbitrate pubblico presso i Romani (Rome, 1893); G. Colin, Rome et la Grece de 200 a 146 avantJ.-C. (Paris, 1905), pp. 507fF.; A. Raeder, L'arbitrage international chez les Hellenes (Christiania, 1912); M. N. Tod, International Arbitration Amongst the Greeks (Oxford, 1913); A. Passerini, Athenaeum, n.s., 15 (1937): 26fF. (on uti possidetis in cases of international arbitration in the second century B.C.); E. Bickermann, R.U.G., 50 (1937): 225; Accame, II dominio romano in Grecia, pp. 3 8fF.; Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, I, 113-14; cf. also M. Holleaux, Utudes, V, 4376°., n. 4. Because of the distances involved, the number of the parties concerned, and also the complexity of the problems often encountered it was only natural that official letters be used in one or more stages of international arbitration. _ .The Communication 0/Senatus Consulta One of the most common uses of the letter form was to communicate senatus consulta to Greek cities and organizations which had requested them or were in some way involved in the rulings established by them. See the examples in Nos. 4, 7, 8, 14, 18, 20, 21, 23, 26, 28, 49. The usual formula in such letters was very formal and to the point: οι δςΐνα πρεσβευταίμοι προσήλθοσαν Ινα αύτοΐς συγκλήτου δόγμα δω. Έγώ αύτοΐς συγκλήτου δόγμα έδωκα. Συγκλήτου δόγμα τόδε εστίν. Compare Nos. 4, 5~ 1 2 ; 7» 36-37; 8, 5; 14» 9°-93· This is sometimes abbreviated to 'Εγώ πρ€σβ€υταΐς ύμετέροις [το της συγκλήτου δόγμα παρέδωκα], as in Nos. 20, A 3, and 18, 16. A more friendly and personal touch is added in No. 23, 3-5: υμάς είδέναι βουλόμ€θα ημάς κατά το της συγκλήτου δόγμα το γενόμενον €\πι Λευκί]ου Λικινίου Μαάρκου Αυρηλίου υπάτων Ιπεγνωκεναι περί άντιλογιών των άνά μ[εσον\ θεωι *Αμφιαράωι καϊ των δημοσιωνών γεγονότων. This letter of the consuls then outlined the procedures that had been followed, including a resume of the senatus consultum

196

EPISTULAE

(11. 52-59). The letter of Marcus Antonius to Plarasa-Aphrodisias (No. 28), although short, is extremely courteous. It employs the familiar phrase εστίν δε αντίγραφα των γεγονότων ύμ€Ϊν φιλάνθρωπων τα υπογεγραμμένα (11. 44~47) to introduce a series of documents, one of which was a senatorial decree. The notion of "appended" documents is also found in the letter of Sulla to Cos (No. 49, 15). Sometimes, of course, the envoys to Rome simply carried back with them a copy of the senatorial decree, a point expressly stated in N o . 5, 4-7. Although these are the common motives found in the extant letters, we must keep in mind that we possess only a minute fraction of what was certainly a considerable body of correspondence. Internal affairs, such as finances (No. 59) and wars (Nos. 48 and 60), as well as events of great interest to the whole Empire, such as the birthday of Augustus (No. 65), would have given rise to a lively exchange of letters between Greek and Roman authorities. The Hellenistic chanceries developed into large, busy institutions, and there is no reason to believe that Roman magistrates and provincial headquarters were any less active, especially in the East. But only those letters which were inscribed on stone (except No. 57) have survived. The great mass of them has perished. The Conclusion Just as official letters begin with a courteous greeting and polite inquiry into the good health of the addressee, so do they end with a wish for his future well-being. Letters sent from the Hellenistic chanceries usually ended with "Ερρωσθε, also to be found in private Greek letters.12 It is short and formal. This type of ending also was used in the Roman letters (Nos. 34, 35, 52, 58, 67, 68, 76). And even when it is missing in our epigraphical copies, one may suspect that it often was to be found in the originals. Only under special conditions, such as the use of letters to communicate senatus consulta, may it have been altogether omitted. Sometimes a different, rather colorless expression ended a letter: [σπχυ? ο]υν εΙο[ή]τε} έκρινον ύμΐν γρά[φαι περί τούτων] in No. I; νμΐν οε γέγραφα περί τούτων in No. 57· hi one letter (No. 52) the writer mentions the names of the Greek envoys to whom he has given his letter for delivery, putting this information at the. end of the letter, just before the fonnal ending In external form, therefore, these Roman letters followed Hellenistic models. The agreements are too striking to be explained in any other way. In the face of the evidence it would not be rash to maintain that the Romans learned the art of letter writing from the Greeks. Whatever the earlier Roman forms and models might have been before the third century B.C., they soon yielded to the well-finished and highly polished products from the Hellenistic chanceries. 2. LANGUAGE OF THE LETTERS In the second century B.C. the eastward advance of Roman arms was paralleled by a westward advance of Greek culture. 12

Koskenniemi, op. cit.t pp. 151-54·

197

Quite unconsciously Philip V became the

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

instrument of fate, for, although he did not start the process, he clearly provided the con­ ditions for its acceleration and success.

The richness of Greek literature, the fascination

that Greek philosophy had for Romans, the great prestige and the past glory of Greece, and the tenacity of the Greek language could not fail to exert a lasting influence upon the Roman character.

The West in time became Romanized, with Latin displacing most

of the native languages, for in that part of the world Rome represented a higher civilization.

But in the East the situation was different.

Rome became Hellenized. 13

Romans began to learn Greek and to use it for literary purposes.

Wealthy and socially

prominent families soon considered a knowledge of the Greek language and literature a necessary part of their education. but it was late and ineffectual.

A reaction set in to combat this love of Hellenism,

The river was too strong.

When Roman generals and statesmen crossed over to Greece at the end of the third and the beginning of the second century B.C., many of them were already quite familiar with the language.

They, like their successors, soon gave up any attempt to make the

Greeks learn Latin.

Instead, Greek was in time recognized as a second official language,

at least in the East.

As we have seen, senatorial decrees were translated into Greek, a

thing done for no other people; never do we hear of decrees officially translated into Punic or Germanic. Greeks.

So it was also with official communications between Romans and

Cato might refuse to speak Greek in Athens, despite his ability to do so,

13 The most detailed and instructive account of this process is still the one by G. Colin, Rome et la Grece de 200 a i46avantJ.-C. (Paris, 1905), pp. 15-18,97-172 (philhellenism in the time of Flamininus), 242-372 (reaction against philhellenism in Rome), 447-606 (Hellenism in R o m e after Pydna). For the influence of Latin upon Greek and the problem of Latin as an official language in the East see L. Hahn, Rom und Romanismus im griechisch-romischen Osten (Leipzig, 1906). Valuable for the lasting influence of Hellenism upon Roman education is H . I. Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity, English ed. by G. Lamb (New York, 1956), pt. 3, chaps. 2-3. In time a conflict of languages developed between Latin as the official language of the ruling power and Greek as the recognized common lan­ guage of the whole eastern Mediterranean. The overwhelming superiority of the Greeks in literature and the arts presented a much different and more complex problem than the one in the West, where R o m e was felt as the superior civilizing force. In the West, Latin triumphed over the barbarian languages. Not so in the East. See R . J. Bonner, " T h e Conflict of Languages in the R o m a n World," The Classical Journal, 25 (1929/30): 579-92; Hahn, op. cit., passim; H . Zilliacus, Zum Kampf - de, IVtltyacUn i.n sjtrcm&hc.-i-r^Lh (Diss., Hclsingfcrs, *?Η)-{±*Ϊ9 i* sn-import?** — w . ' by F. Dolger in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 36 [1936]: 108-17). Cf. R . Cavenaile, "Influence latine sur le vocabulaire grec d'Egypte," Chroniques d'lzgypte, 26 (1951)· 391-404. Even in southern Italy the use of Greek continued officially until well into the Principate: see the Greek inscriptions in I.G., XIV, 714-828. In the matter of everyday contact between Greeks and Romans, official or otherwise, interpreters were used, but one frequently feels, upon reading through examples of their use, that often they were employed for official form and were not always absolutely necessary. See W . Snellmann, De interpretibus Romanorum deque linguae latinae cum aliis nationibus commercio (Leipzig, 1914); H . S. Gehman, The Interpreters of Foreign Languages Among the Ancients (Diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1914); R . Taubenschlag, " T h e Interpreters in the Papyri," Charisteria Thaddeo Sinko (Warsaw, 1951), pp. 361-63 ( = Opera Minora, II, 167-70); R . Calderini, Aegyptus, 33 (1953): 34iff. On the whole, all educated Romans in the last two centuries of the Republic knew the Greek language and literature, some better than others, of course. In the second century there prevailed in many Roman circles a kind of intellectual excitement and enthusiasm for everything Greek. Thus Hellenism helped to mold the R o m a n character. The concept oiutraque lingua (Horace Carmina 3. 8. 5) was a real, vital force.

198

EPISTULAE

Aemilius Paulus might make some announcements in Latin to assembled Macedonians, and Greek envoys might be forced to employ interpreters in the Senate, but this was for the sake of outward appearances, calculated to preserve and uphold the majesty of Rome and her language.14 Latin was the official language, but the recognition of Greek as a second came to be an acceptable concession. For that reason the copies of Roman letters that have been preserved for us in the inscriptions are in Greek, not in Latin. But what of the originals ? When a Roman general wrote a letter in Greece to a Greek city, did he compose it in Greek ? Or did he write it in Latin and then translate it into Greek ? Did any of the Romans write letters in Latin and have them translated into Greek by others ? If so, were such translators native Romans who had learned Greek, or were they Greeks who had learned Latin? These are important questions, for which simple answers, unfortunately, are not possible. It will be necessary to examine the language of the more fully preserved letters before any conclusions can be reached. T. Quinctius Flamininus to Chyretiae (No. 33J* From our literary sources we learn that Flamininus was an enthusiastic admirer of Greek culture and was able to speak the language. Plutarch (Flam. 5. 5) called him "a Greek in voice and language," a statement supported by other authorities and amplified by modern scholars.15 We may then assume that he himself wrote the letter to Chyretiae in Greek. It is, however, carelessly composed, contains several mistakes, and on the whole gives the impression that its author is using an acquired language, that he is not a native Greek. This last is to be expected. He writes φανεράν πεποήκαμεν τήν re ιδίαν καΐ του δήμου του 'Ρωμαίων προαίρεσιν, in which strict usage would require την before του δήμου. The use of the perfect tense in πεποήκαμεν and β€βουλήμ€θα (bis) betrays the Roman thinker. The phrase ευγνώμονα λέγοντες is apparently used with the meaning "give an honest answer," while the adjective usually means "considerate, prudent, reasonable." And εγκρισις means "approval." Flamininus should have written κρίσις. Behind κατά πάν μέρος seems to hover omni ex parte. Finally, in the last part of the letter, in the sentence "Οσοι μεντοι μή κρκο'υ.σμ.εΐ'οι *1σ\ν row επιβαλλόντων αυτοί?, Flamininus ought to have used τα επιβάλλοντα αύτοΐς, as Viereck observes. On the other hand, the use of προαίρεσις shows a familiarity with Greek diplomatic phraseology. Like αϊρεσις it means "policy" and is common in Hellenistic official Greek letters (Welles, op. cit., p. 310). * Viereck, op. cit., pp. 75-76. 14

Hahn, op. cit., p. 35, n. 3, refers to Valerius Maximus (2. 2. 2): Mud quoque magna cum perseverantia custodiebant, tie Graecis umquam nisi latine responsa darent, quirx etiam ipsos linguae volubilitate, qua plurimum valent, excussa per interpretem loqui cogebant non in urbe tantum nostra, sed etiam in Graecia et Asia, quo scilicet Latinae vocis honos per omnes gentes venerabilior diffunderetur. Nee Mis deerant studia doctrinae, sed nulla non in re pallium togae subici debere arbitrabantur, indignum esse existimantes inlecebris et suavitati litterarum imperii pondus et auctoritatem donari. 15 Colin, op. cit., pp. 133-34. Plutarch Flam. 12. 6 also says that he composed the Greek verses on some silver shields and a golden wreath which he dedicated at Delphi.

199

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

M. Valerius Messala to Teos (No. 34J* Here is a good example of a reply by a magistrate to a Greek envoy, the diplomatic phrases so familiar from chancery Greek flowing with ease from the writer's hand. Courteous yet pointed are his remarks at the end, where he says, "we shall try to assist in making an increase of honors for the god and of privileges for you, as long as you also preserve your good intentions toward us in the future." The phrase π€ΐρασόμ€θα συν^παύξειν recalls the same formula in Hellenistic chancery Greek (see Welles, op. cit., p. 365). The Roman mind at work, however, can be detected in the letter of Messala in the omission of the article with δήμαρχοι (1. 3) and from the faulty position of re in line 4, Μένιππος ο τ€ παρ* Άντιόχου κτλ. The noun προτιμία in line 17 is extant elsewhere only in the second century A.D. writer Maximus Tyrius (2. 5 Dubner), al­ though the verb προτιμάω is common enough in chancery Greek (Welles, op. cit., p. 361). Viereck believed that the noun was too strong to be used in the present context and suggested that Messala ought to have used προθυμία. The use of από in the phrase άφορολόγητον από του δήμου του 'Ρωμαίων (11. 20—21) is odd. The meaning seems to be "immune from taxation imposed by the Roman people," but S.I.G.3, II, 539, A 34, an Amphictyonic decree, has άσφάλειαν καϊ άσυλίαν άπό πάντων. Messala, if he wrote the letter himself, was familiar with diplomatic Greek, but his Roman mind obtrudes and betrays his origin. L. Cornelius Scipio and His Brother to Heraclea (No. 35)^ No errors of language have been committed in this letter. We find everywhere good Koine usage and vocabulary. One expression, however, if correctly restored, reveals a truly Roman frame of mind. It is found in lines 8-9: παραγ€γονότων υμών €ΐς την ήμ€τ4ρα [μ πίστιν]. The Latin idiom is in nostramfidemse permittere. The translation of this expression into Greek had caused considerable misunderstanding between the Aetolians and the Romans. Livy (36. 28) tells us that a meeting was held between the Aetolians and the consul for 191 B.C., Manius Acilius Glabrio, to discuss their differences. The Aetolian envoy said that his people were ready to entrust themselves and their possessions to the good laith of the Romans (se suaque omnia jideipopuli Romanipermittere). Upon being asked to weigh his words carefully, the envoy produced and read from a decree that supported his remark. But when the consul forthwith began to issue orders, the envoy stopped him and said, "not into slavery but into your good faith have we delivered ourselves." It was promptly explained to him what the phrase really meant, to his consternation.16 The Latin meant unconditional surrender, but the Greek translation had used πίστις to render fides. That meant only "good faith, trust, guarantee." It is possible that this same word was used in the present letter to Heraclea * Viereck, op. cit., p. 76. ■(■ Viereck, op. cit., pp. 76-77. For the whole episode see Livy 36. 28 and Polybius 20. 9-10. For examples of the phrase see Polybius 2. 11. 5, 3. 30. 1, 18. 38. 5, and 20. 10. 2. 16

200

EPISTULAE

♦as the equivalent of fides. A very short word is required by the amount of space avail­ able in the lacuna, which excludes the possibility of Ιπιτροπ-ην or even oupeoiv, as sug­ gested by Boeckh and Waddington. Besides, Polybius (3. 30. 1; 18. 38. 5; and 20. 10. 2) uses πίστις in just this way. The restoration appears unavoidable. C. Livius Salinator to Delphi (No. 3$) Apart from the usual titles of Roman magistrates and "Senate" (11. 1-2, 7, n , 18), there is little to distinguish this letter from Hellenistic chancery Greek. The subject matter, of course, stamps it as Roman, but the language and phraseology are consistent with Koine usage. Especially interesting are four words or expressions. In fifth- and fourth-century Greek προσέχειν τον νουν was used very commonly, but in Hellenistic times the phrase την οιάνοιαν πρόσεχαν makes its appearance. For the first of these see Aristophanes Equit. 503 and Plutus 113; Plato, Symp. 174 d; Antipho 3. 4. 1. For ex­ amples of the second see No. 9, 25; I.G., VII, 2225, 45 (second century B.C.) has π€ρί τούτου τη διάνοια προσέχειν (cf. Septuagint Exod. 9. 2 1 ; No. 2, 43). The verb δι,αφωνέω usually meant "be out of tune, disagree, be found wanting," but in the Hellenistic age it also acquired the meaning "perish," as in the present letter (1. 10). For the latter meaning see also 7.G., XII, 7, 386 ( = S.I.G.3, I, 521, Amorgos); P. Teh. 8. 25; P. Flor. 59. 5; B.G.U., 530: 31. In line 11 the expression όταν καθ' ημάς γίνηται τα κατά την Σάμην πράγματα must mean "when affairs at Same turn out favorably for us." This use of γίνομαι seems to have originated in the language of sacrifice. See Thucydides 5. 55 and Xenophon Hell. 3. 1. 17. In line 19 the verb εναρβστβω is rare in fifth-century Greek, the only occurrence known to me being in the comic poet Lysippus (Kock, I. 702 = Edmonds, I, no. 7, p. 204). It means "be well pleasing, take delight in." It is fairly common in Koine. See Diod. Siculus 14. 4; Dionysius of Halicamassus 11. 60. 1; Philo Abr. 35; Septuagint Genesis 5. 22 and 6. 9; I.G., XIV, 757, 8 (Naples, first century A.D.). Q. Fabius Maximus to Dyme (No. 43^* Fabius writes very well, his language and style being in keeping generally with the prevailing practices of the age. Only two passages require comment. The first (1. 14) contains the noun άσυναλλ [α] ξ [ία], which appears only here in the epigraphical texts (cf. Stobaeus 2. 7. 25). The adjective άσυνάλλακτος, however, is known from Dionysius of Halicamassus 1. 41 and 5. 66; and Plutarch Mot alia 416 F (Bernardakis). The meaning is "lack of intercourse." The second passage (1. 20) reads: (Σώσον) κρίνας Ζνοχον elvai θανάτωι πα[ρ]€χώρισα. The verb παραχωρίζω is not found elsewhere. The meaning is "Having judged Sosus to be guilty, I sentenced him to death," but the con­ struction is not completely clear. "Ενοχος is often construed with the dative ("liable * Viereck, op. cit., p. 77.

201

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

t o . . . " ) (see Preisigke, Worterbuch, s.v. ένοχος19). It has been suggested (see 5.7.G.3, II, 684, n. 13) that the verb was used in place of παρέδωκα, but it is equally possible that Fabius made a mistake and intended to write παρεχώρησα. Latin influence may have been responsible for the present combination of words. He may have had the verb tradere in mind when he was writing.

C. Cassius to Nysa (No. 48J Latinisms abound in this letter. On the whole there is far too much Latin and too little Greek in it. More than any other it seems to have been composed in Latin and then translated into Greek. Whether the same person, C. Cassius, was involved in both of these procedures is not easy to say. He wrote the Latin original, of course, but he may or may not have put it into Greek. Line 3: ηρώτησέν re [οπω?]. Here ερωτάω has the later meaning " beg, request,"and is followed by όπως (or Ινα), a construction common in the New Testament and the papyri. For examples see Amdt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, 1957), s.v. "ερωτάω" 2. Line 5: εξουσίαν αύ[τ]ώ [π]οιΐ7σω επι του συνβουλίο[υ]. The writer clearly has a phrase such as potestatem facere in mind. Possible parallels have been pointed out (S.I.G.3, II, 741, n. 6) in Cicero Epist. ad Quintum Fratrem 1. 2. 5. 15 (neque praetores diebus aliquot adiri possent vel potestatem sui facerent) and Philipp. 8. 10. 31 (quotidie, simulatque luceret facere omnibus conveniendi potestatem sui). And A. Wilhelm (Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, 160 [1898]: 215) referred to section κ' in the ancient table of contents attached to Josephus Ant. 16, where we find: ως Καίσαρος εξουσίαν δόντος εν Βηρυτώ παρά τω συνεδρίω κατηγόρησε τών παίδων κτλ. Line 6: καταλογής της [συν]κλήτου και δ[ημου] 'Ρωμαίων. The noun καταλογή is rare in this usage among the Greek authors, but quite a few examples occur in the Greek copies of Roman documents. They may be cited here. No. 17, 8: [της του] των .npfi/της κα\ κστνλογης εν\*κεν κτλ. No. 18, 55- [#Γ*?^ τούτων] άρεττ)ς καταλογής τ€ ε[νεκεν κτλ. No. 21, 5· [περί της €ίς τα δημόσια πράγματα καταλογής υμών κτλ. No. 22, 9: όπως ύπερ των καλώς πεπραγμένων υπ* αύ[τών και άνδρα]γα(βη) μάτων εις τα δτ^χόσια (π)>ράγματα τα ημέτερα καταλογή ννν αυτών γενηται. N o . 23, 37· καταλογής θεών αθανάτων ιερών τεμενών τε φυλακής κτλ. No. 49» ^ 4 : καταλο[γής aut -γη] του Διονύσου και τών Μουσών κτλ. Elsewhere it is found in an in­ scription from Delphi (S.I.G.3, II, 739, 9, ca. 85 B.C.): τας τε του θεοΰ τιμάς ένεκα και τάς Δελφών καταλογάς, κτλ. It also occurs in a long inscription from Solomos, near Corinth, in which the Lycian Koinon honors a woman called Iunia Theodora (B.C.H., 83 [1959]: 496-508 = S.E.G., XVIII, 143, 1. 20): εχομεν (αύτην) εν τηι πλείστηι καταλογηι, κτλ., dating from about the middle of the first century A.D. Polybius may have used it in 22. 12. 10: τοις δε πρεσβευταΐς τοις at€t παρ* εαυτών εκπεμπομενοις παρηνει προσεχειν τον νουν και καταδοχην ποιεΐσθαι την άρμόζουσαν, καθάπερ και

202

EPISTULAE

'Ρωμαίοι ποιούνται των παραγινομένων προς αυτούς πρ€σβ€υτών. In this passage the group of manuscripts called Υ in the edition by Buettner-Wobst reads καταλογην where modern editors print καταδοχην. The manuscript reading, however, ought to be retained, since the use of the word certainly is in agreement with the meaning obtained from the epigraphic examples just cited. Besides, Polybius appears to have obtained his information on this matter from a Roman document, where the word is more likely to have occurred than in a Greek source. Viereck (op. cit., p. 73) argued that the word meant honos, for in Nos. 17 and 18 it could be equated with virtutis honorisque causa. But Dittenberger (S.I.G.2, II, 741, n. 9) felt that, because it was also used in the genitive without a preposition in the present letter (as well as in Nos. 23 and 49), its meaning was more likely to have been gratia or reverentia, for honore was not used in that way. The use of the genitive alone indicates a Roman frame of mind. It is not Greek. Lines 9-11: άπςκρίθη[ν κα]λώς [αύτ]όν πζ[ποι]ηκέναι καΐ τάξζι έματόν τ€ δ[ώσβιν] έργα[σία]ν κτλ. Here τάξ€ΐ reflects a Latin use, the ablative ordine. See Cicero Pro Quinct. 7. 28: existima, C. Aquili, modo et ratione omnia Romae Naevium fecisse si hoc, quod per litteras istius in Gallia gestum est, recte atque ordine factum esse videatur. For recte atque ordine see the Digest 1. 16. 4. 4; 16. 1. 2. 1; and 40. 12. 27. 1. Apart from this, the use of the accusative Ιματόν is a Latinism, for Greek would use a nominative when the subject of the infinitive is the same as the subject of the main verb. Behind the phrase έργασίαν δίδωμι clearly stands operam dare. See Nos. 18, 111, and 15, 58. For many examples of the phrase in the New Testament and the papyri see Blass-Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, English translation and revision of the 9th and 10th editions, by R. W. Funk (Chicago, 1961), p. 5. Line χάριτα gratus. χάρις.

11: δπ[ως €]πιγνω ταΰτα ήμ€ΐν χάριτα €?ι>[αι]. Dittenberger thought that was a barbarism, the neuter plural of an adjective χάριτος, corresponding to But, as A. Wilhelm thought, it is more likely a mistake in the use of the noun It also betrays the non-Greek.

An Unknown Roman Magistrate to Miletus (No. 52^ Latinisms are seen in line 46 (ινα re ύμ€Ϊς instead of ινα νμ€ΐς r«) and line 51 (έσταμέvov ηι = constitutum sit). But the most unusual feature of this letter is the statement to­ ward the end (11. 54-57) about the language employed in the writing of the letter: την δέ αιτ'ιαν δι ην έλλη [νι]κοΐς έγραφα, μη έπιζητήσητ€' κατά νουν γαρ [έσ]χον, μη τι παρά την έρμην^ίαν έλασσον τά [γ€γραμμ] ένα νοησαι δΰνησθ€. This could be trans­ lated as follows: "Don't ask the reason why I wrote in Greek. It was my intention that it should be impossible for you to have any thoughts about my letter contrary to the correct interpretation." The writer means that he wants to make absolutely sure that no mistaken impressions be created in the mind of any Greek who reads his letter. His alone is the official text. Hence, the writer must have composed in Greek. That he "thought" in Latin in the process of that composition, however, seems a reasonable assumption from the Latinisms already mentioned. At first glance his statement might

203

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

be taken to mean that Roman magistrates up to his time sent their letters to Greek cities only in Latin. This requires careful thought. N o such Latin letters from the Republic have come to light. 17 Latin and Greek, yes. Latin alone, no. Furthermore, the extant Greek copies contain Latinisms and mistakes of such a nature that a Roman and not a Greek mind is seen at work upon them. Hence, the Romans either composed in Greek or had their Latin originals translated into Greek by Romans who had learned the language. We must understand our writer to mean merely that he wrote his letter in Greek to avoid the danger of mistakes in translation by someone else. In other words, he trusts himself alone. For the publication in Greek cities of both the Latin and the Greek of official Roman letters see Nos. 61, 62 (?), and 65.

The Letters ofM. Antonius (Nos. 28 and 57J* Marcus Antonius spent some time in Greece after the death of the dictator Caesar, enjoyed the company of Greeks, listened to their literary discussions, and no doubt knew something of their language. l8 That he himself, however, was responsible for the Greek of these two letters is very doubtful. In his letter to Plarasa-Aphrodisias he calls himself τριών ανδρών της τών δημοσίων πραγμάτων διατάξεως, while in the other, to the koinon of Asia, he substitutes από καταστάσεως for διατάξεως. Does this change reveal a different person, a different translator ? One might expect that if Antonius wrote both letters in Greek he would have used the same phrase or word in both of them. The matter should not be pressed, but the possibility exists. In the letter to Plarasa-Aphrodisias (No. 28) a phrase occurs which Viereck called parum graeca. It is found in lines 32-35: τον Σόλωνα . . . . εσχον τε εν τοις υπ* εμοΰ γεινωσκομενοις. And in lines 48—51 w e have εν τοις δημοσίοις τοις παρ* ύμεΐν γράμμασιν εντάξαι. One expects the accusative (cf. Josephus Ant. 14. 319). In lines 22-31 is an awkwardly constructed sentence: ημάς παρεκάλεσεν εις το του γεγονότος ύμεΐν επικρίματος και δόγματος και όρκίου και νόμου άντιπεφωνημενα εκ τών δημοσίων δελτων εξαποστεΐλαι ύμεΐν τα αντίγραφα. The use of άντιφωνεΐν is odd. For details c/»f» the rnrnrnenfar" -

The Letters of Augustus (Nos. 58, 60, 62, 64, 67, 68) Suetonius (Aug. 86-89) has given us a fairly good resume of the emperor's manner of speaking, his peculiarities of style and vocabulary in writing, his oddities in orthography, and his command of Greek. We are told that from his youth he had devoted himself to the study of oratory and belles lettres, and that he had written several prose works— * Viereck, op. cit., p. 77. 17

Communications from R o m e to Roman magistrates in the East were written in Latin, of course, a practice continued in imperial times: Stroux and Wenger, op. cit., p. 23. 18 Plutarch Ant. 23. 2-3, and Appian Bell. Civ. 5. 76. Josephus (Ant. 14. 12. 3-5) has preserved three of his letters (one of them communicating an edict) which are related to Jewish affairs.

204

EPISTULAE

including his autobiography, in thirteen books, up to the Cantabrian War—as well as a few pieces of poetry. His speeches were carefully composed and well ordered, free from sententious remarks and obscure words, his chief aim being simplicity and clarity. He had studied under Apollodorus of Pergamum and under the philosopher Areus, but, for all that, he was never able to speak Greek fluently or to compose anything in it. When conditions demanded that he write to Greeks, he composed in Latin and had someone else translate it: non tamen ut aut loqueretur expedite aut componere aliquid auderet; nam et si quid res exigeret, Latine formabat vertendumque alii dabat, as Suetonius puts it (Aug. 89. 1). This is important evidence, and, considering the fact that Suetonius had access to the records in the imperial chancery, we must accept it. Compared with the mass of correspondence and the written material which Augustus must have produced in the long period of his official activity, the extant remains are small.19 The Res Gestae, of course, is the longest and the most important of these remains, followed by the Cyrene Edicts, the Rhosus letters, the letters to Cnidus and other Greek cities, and a few other edicta and decreta. From this material some general estimate of his style and technique can be formed, but the Greek itself in the documents should not be ascribed to Augustus. It was the work of anonymous translators in the service of the emperor. Since he is known to have made use of freedmen in his court for administrative purposes, we may be sure that he had a number of bilingual secretaries constantly available. Out of the problems generated by the complexity of the Empire there would have arisen at an early date the need for a more-or-less permanent staff of such personnel, competent to deal with the mass of correspondence. It was accordingly under Augustus that the seeds of the imperial ab epistulis latinis and ab epistulis graecis were to begin their period of germination.20 But the high level of organization achieved by the time of Hadrian cannot be assumed for the reign of the first Princeps. They were private secretaries rather than the heads of bureaus, and they were very likely the men whom the emperor called upon for the translation of his Latin letters into Greek. But we have no first-hand evidence on these translators. Two of the emperor's secretaries are known by name, Polybius and Hilarion (Suetonius Aug. 101), but surely more than two would have been required. When Viereck (op. cit., p. 78) evaluated the Greek letters of Augustus, he concluded that they were elegantly written, with a fine feeling for the use of particles and correct

• 19

For his letters see Viereck, op. cit., p . 78; Peter, op. cit., pp. 97-100; E. Bourne, "Augustus as a Letter-Writer," T.A.P.A., 49 (1918): 53ft*.; H. Malcovati, Caesaris Augusti Imperatoris Operum Fragmenta* (Turin, 1962), pp. XVIII-XXV and 6-50. 20 For the bureau ab epistulis see M. I. Rostovtzeff, R.E., s.v. " ab epistulis," cols. 210-15; O. Hirschfeld, Die Kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten bis auf Diocletian (Berlin, 1905), pp. 318-25; L. Friedlander and G. Wissowa, Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms9'10, I (Leipzig, 1922), 56-59, and IV (Leipzig, 1921), 35-46 (comment by Bang). In the course of time (Hadrianic) the freedmen were replaced by imperial procurators: H. G. Pflaum, Les procurateurs iquestres sous le haut-empire romain (Paris, 1950), pp. 60-61. Cf. G. B. Townend Historia, 10 (1961): 375~8i. The title existed under Augustus: Ianuarius Caesaris Aug. (servus) ab epistulis (C.I.L., VI, 8596). Trajan, of course, also was active in the placement of equestrian officials in posts of prominence.

20$

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

grammar, and that the writer had imitated in one case the Attic of the fifth and fourth centuries. Some expressions in the letter to the Cnidians (No. 67) he found particularlyhappy, such as τρόπωι τινϊ πολιοκίας (11. 15-16), and δικαιότερον αν σωθεντα του αδελφού (11. 26-27). The material which has come to light since Viereck expressed his opinion has amply supported his conclusion. Latinisms do occur in the letters, but in the translation of technical expressions, such as official titles and legal terminology, they are almost unavoidable. Some awkwardness of language, some pulling and stretching of words, is usually necessary. Without attempting to be exhaustive in the case of the emperor's letters, some of these phrases may be listed here. Titles are omitted because they are obvious. No. 58 Line 11: είς τούτους τους λόγους, clearly for in haec verba = " on the following terms "; cf. No. 23, 54. Line 16: [ιδίους καφ]ους TTJI ημετεραι σωτη[ριαι] συνεζευξεν, apparently for suas utilitates cum nostra salute coniunxit. Line 53: κριτήριον... .λαμβάνειν, for iudicium capere. De Visscher refers to Cicero Part. Orat. 28. 100: de capiendis subeundisve iudiciis. Line 54: κρί]σιν συνίστασθαι = litem constituere or possibly litem contestari. Line 61: πρόκριμα κεφαλής = praeiudicium capitis, explained by Arangio-Ruiz (Studia et Documenta, 1936, p. 515), who refers to Cicero De Inv. 2. 20. 59-60: agit is, cui manus praecisa est, iniuriarum. postulat is, quicum agitur, a praetore exceptionem: extra quam in reum capitis praeiudicium fiat.. .non enim oportet in recuperatorio iudicio eius maleficii, de quo inter sicarios quaeritur, praeiudicium fieri. Roussel, in Syria, 15 (1934): 60, n. 3, has found another example in Greek in an imperial rescript of the second century A.D. : I.G., V, 11, col. II, 11. 5ff. Line 64: €#c προαγωγής γνώι. Oliver took this to be the equivalent of pro tribunali cognoverit. For the first part of the expression, however, De Visscher had suggested per ambitionem. Line 67: δούναι κατ [άδικοι εσ]τωσαν. It was the opinion of Arangio-Ruiz, op. cit., p. 516, that this was the translation of dare damnas esto. The majority of these examples are legal terms and, as such, pose special problems for a translator. The Greek equivalents of the original Latin might well be obscure to a Greek with no knowledge of Roman law. When we turn to the letter to the Cnicjians, no such technical expressions axe found, despite its legal nature. The Greek is everywhere fluent and correct, marred by only one slight slip. In line 29 the noun εξετασία is used, the only occurrence of such a word to my knowledge. The translator ought to have used εξετασις. We may conclude that those who translated the Latin letters of Augustus were welleducated men, capable of writing Greek in the Attic of the fifth or fourth century B.C. But excellent though they were, technical phrases from the language of Roman law taxed their abilities to the limit. And in their particular case it is not easy to decide whether they were Romans who had mastered Greek or Greeks who had mastered

206

EPISTULAE

Latin. Technical phrases would have been just as difficult to translate for the one group as for the other. One must also take into consideration the possibility that in the long rule of Augustus many secretaries of different backgrounds and nationalities must have seen service in his court.

The Letter o/Paulus Fabius Maximus (No. 6$) Here at last we have a fair amount of the Latin text to compare with the Greek, a rare piece of luck. The Latin, it seems, was not often published along with the Greek, but the nature of the material in the present letter required a full publication. As we shall see, it is a composition of a special kind. The two texts must be seen together, so that they can be compared. The Latin Copy from Dorylaion (corrected spelling) Β 2-9

5

Cumque non ullo ex die feliciora et privatim singulis et universis publice trahi possint auspicia quam ex eo, quern felicissimutn communiter (credunt), fere autem omnium in Asia civitatium idem tempus anni novi initiumque magistratuum sit, in quod fortuito, videlicet ut honoraretur, principis nostri natalis incidit, vel quia tot erga divina merita gratum esse difficile est nisi omnis pietatis temptetur materia, vel quia dies est propria cuique laetitia ingressui honoris statutus, publicum videretur diem [-

-] The Greek Copy (composite)

A 11-19

15

και cTid ονΒεμιάς av an 6 ί)^ί/;α^ t?s~ re το κοινόν και εις το ίδιον έκαστος 6φ€λος ευτυχεστέρας λάβοι άφορμάς η της πάσιν γενομένης ευτυχούς, σχεδόν τε συμβαίνει τον αυτόν ταϊς iv '*Ασίαι πόλεσιν καιρόν etvca της εις την αρχήν εισόδου, δηλονότι κατά τίνα θήαν βούλησιν οΰτως της τάξεως προτετυπωμενης, ίνα αφορμή γένοιτο της εις τον Σεβαστον τι/χτ}?, καϊ επει Βύσκολον μεν εστίν τοις τοσούτοις αύτοΰ εύεργετήμασιν κατ* Ισον εύχαριστείν, ει μη παρ* έκαστα επινοησαιμεν τρόπον τινά της άμείφεωςί ήδειον δ* αν άνθρωποι την κοινην 7τασιν ημεραν γενεθλιον άγάγοι [εν] κτλ. It is at once apparent that here is no simple or literal translation from Latin into Greek. Everywhere there is a naturalness of expression and structure, with practically no vestige

2θγ

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

of a Latin original clinging to it. The only passage in which one might suggest a Latinism is in A 29, where the passive infinitive in προστάξω το ψήφισμα iv τω ναω άνατζθήναι is slightly suspicious. But even that should not be pressed. When one compares whole clauses, one with the other, the result is surprising. The gracefulness of style, the ease with which the clauses are handled, and the manner in which the various ideas are expressed lead one to suspect an original composition in Greek. The thoughts found in the Latin are present in the Greek without a hint of what may be called "translation Greek." There are no slavish or stiff reproductions of words from a glossary, no stilted expressions, no peculiar combinations. The mind of the person writing the Greek does not appear to be confined or restricted by a Latin structure. His rendition oifortuito, for example, by κατά τίνα θήαν βούλησιν is not the sort of thing likely to occur to a translator. Wilamowitz in Athn. Mitt., 24 (1899): 292, was so impressed by the language and style of this letter that he felt it must have been composed in Greek. It was too good to be a translation from Latin. And H. Dessau in his Geschichte der romischen Kaiserzeit, I (Berlin, 1924), 105-6, agreed with him, thinking that the Latin either was a translation from the Greek or was composed later in time. We must accept the view that this letter was composed in Greek, and by a person who possessed an excellent knowledge of the language. But that person need not have been Paulus Fabius Maximus. The presence of a Latin text so different from the Greek demands an explanation. It is here suggested that the proconsul explained in general terms to his translator or bilingual secretary what he wanted to say in his letter. The secretary took down the Latin words of his master, but probably only in the form of notes or isolated phrases. Then he composed the letter in Greek, working not from a full text but only from his notes to guide him. This would have given him scope for greater freedom of expression and for a more natural Greek style. When he finished the letter, he turned to the Latin and made it agree with the Greek as best he could. Hence, not all of the Latin is a verbatim record of the proconsul's actual words. Its skeleton is his; the rest was added by the secretary to make it conform to the Greek.

From all these examples one can see that the style and the language can vary con­ siderably from letter to letter. Some are poorly written, with many Latinisms, while others are in excellent Greek, with little trace of Latin influence. They are generally in the Koine of the second or first centuries B.C., but one (No. 67) is worthy of the Attic in the best period. Mistakes in grammar and awkward expressions often must have caused Greek readers to smile or shake their heads in bewilderment. There is even a dative absolute in No. 70, line 12. Those who knew Latin would understand. Many of the letters were certainly composed in Greek. Such compositions generally were good or bad, depending upon the abilities of the individuals writing. The good ones can be recognized by the scarcity of Latinisms and by the Greek style. Some Latinisms, of course, were unavoidable, such as those necessary in the rendition of Roman

208

EPISTULAE

titles and technical expressions from Roman law. They should not, however, be taken always to mean that letters containing them were translations from Latin originals, for by their very nature they do not have precise equivalents in any language except their own. Some of the letters seem to have been much more affected by Latin originals, in some cases (No. 48) to such a degree that one may suspect they were originally written in Latin and then translated into Greek. This could have been done, for example, by certain Roman magistrates who may not have been able to think out their letters in Greek and then simply write them down. They may have expressed their ideas first in Latin from beginning to end and then either translated them at their leisure or turned them over to somone else. I cannot call these "compositions in Greek." They were not conceived or drawn up in that language. They are really translations. It is not possible, however, in all instances to decide which of these procedures was used, for the one might have been done very badly and the other very well. And at times a writer may have used a combination of both. Clearly No. 65 may be called a "composition in Greek," as we have here defined the term, but No. 48 should be labeled a translation. The remainder of the letters fall somewhere between these two points, for only a few are as good as the former or as bad as the latter. Sometimes letters were sent out in both Greek and Latin, but certainly not always. The individual magistrate used his own discretion in this matter. On the whole we may say that these letters were originally intended, from beginning to end, to appear in Greek, but the method used to produce the Greek text was not always the same. A capable Roman could think in Greek and write in Greek, but another required a slower process and a different approach. In any case, except for the letters of Augustus, we may be quite sure that the Romans themselves were responsible for the Greek. Finally it must be emphasized that these letters were written under a number of different conditions. Some were written by consuls or praetors in Rome, some by generals in the field, and some by governors in provincial headquarters. Each has its own history, its own story to tell. The. form and the language pre Greek, The spirit and the contents are Roman.

209

Β. THE DOCUMENTS

33 EPISTULA T. QUINCTII FLAMININI AD CHYRETIENSES

197-194 B.C.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. W. M. Leake, Classical Journal, 14 (1816): 339fF.; E. Q. Visconti, Journal des Savants, Sept., 1816, pp. 2ifF.; A. Boeckh, C.I.G., I (1828), 1770; W . M. Leake, Travels in^ Northern Greece, IV (London, 1835), 305fF.; Le Bas-Waddington, Voyage archeologique en Grece et en Asie Mineure: Inscriptions, II (1870), 1303; E. L. Hicks, A Manual of Greek Historical Inscriptions (Oxford, 1882), no. 190; P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Gottingen, 1888), no. I, p. 1; W . Dittenberger, S.I.G.2,1 (1898), 278; G. Colin, Rome et la Grece de 200 a 146 avantJ.-C. (Paris, 1905), pp. 1696°.; O. Kern, I.G., IX, 2 (1908), 338; A. S. Arbanitopoulos, 'Αρχ. 'Εφ., 1913, p. 145 (cum imagine), and ibid., 1917, pp. 2fF.; F. Hiller von Gaertringen, in W . Dittenberger, S.I.G.3, II (1917), 593; A. Wilhelm, Jahreshefte, 17(1919): n6fF.; Abbott-Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton, 1926), no. 1, pp. 249-50; J. A. O. Larsen, "Roman Greece," in T. Frank, An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, IV (Baltimore, 1938), 311-12; C. Michel, Recueil d* Inscriptions Grecques (Brussels, 1940), no. 44; S. B. Kougeas, 'Αρχ. Έφ., 1945-47, p. 105; Lewis-Reinhold, Roman Civilization, I (New York, 1951), 309-10; I. Calabi, Huso storiografico delle iscrizioni latine (Milan, 1953), p. 176; H. Volkmann, Hermes, 82 (1954): 467; Η. Ε. Stier, in Studium Berolinense (i960), 6i4fF.; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 19; S. Accame, Vespansione romana in Grecia (Naples, 1961), pp. 252-53; H. Gundel, R.E., s.v. "Quinctius" (45), col. 1082.

DESCRIPTION. A stone of white marble built into the wall of a church near the village of Demeniko in Thessaly. Height: 0.56 m. Width: 0.61 m. Height of letters: 6.012 m.

211

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

5

ίο

15

Τίτος Κοινκτιος, στρατηγός ύπατος 'Ρωμαίων, Χυρετιεων τοΐς ταγοΐς και τηι πόλει χαίρειν. *ΕπεΙ και εν τοις λοιποΐς πάσιν φανεράν πεποήκαμεν την τ€ Ιοίαν και του δήμου του 'Ρωμαίων προαίρεσιν ην εχομεν εις υμάς όλοσχ€ρώς, βεβουλήμεθα και iv τοΐς εξής eVtSet^at κατά πάν μέρος προ€στηκότ€ς του ενδόξου, ίνα μηδ* iv τούτοις εχωσιν ημάς κατάλαλεΐν οι ουκ από του βέλτιστου είωθότες αναστρεφεσθαι. "Οσαι γάρ ποτέ απολείπονται κτήσεις έγγειοι και οίκίαι των καθηκουσών εις το δημόσιον το 'Ρωμαίων, πάσας δίδομεν τηι ύμετεραι πόλει, όπως και iv τούτοις μάθητε την καλοκαγαθίαν ημών και οτι τελεως iv ούθενί φιλαργυρήσ[α]ι βεβουλήμεθα, περί πλείστου ποιούμενοι χάριτα και φιλοδοξίαν. "Οσοι μεντοι μη κεκομισμενοι είσιν των €7π)9αλλόι/τωι/ αύτοΐς, εάν υμάς διδάξωσιν και φαίνωνται ευγνώμονα λέ­ γοντες, στοχαζομενων υμών εκ τών υπ* εμοϋ γεγραμ­ μένων εγκρίσεων, κρίνω δίκαιον είναι άποκαθίστασ#cu αύτοΐς.

"Ερρωσθε. Text based on the one by Viereck (notes). 4 Viereck puts comma before ολοσχερώς. 13-14 μεντοι, Leake, but MENTON, stone (cf. L. Cohn, Hermes, 17 [1882]: 645). 19 "Ερρωσθε was inscribed twice, the first one being erased.

COMMENTARY. According to the terms of peace imposed on Philip after his defeat at Cynoscephalae in 197 B.C., all Greeks who had not been subject to the Macedonian king were to be free and autonomous, but the Macedonian dependencies in Greece were to be surrendered to the Romans. 1 Ten commissioners headed by T. Quinctius Flamininus took on the task of settling Greek affairs and carrying out the terms of the peace. By the summer of 194 B.C. the job was fumhcJ. rlaniininu: and his- army hid left Greece and returned to Rome. His letter to Chyretiae was written, therefore, sometime between those two dates. Arbanitopoulos assigned it to 192 B.C., when Flamininus had returned to Greece, but such a date is improbable.2 * Since Livy (31. 41. 5) tells us that the Aetolians, as allies of Rome, had captured and sacked the city of Chyretiae (in 199 B.C.), it is permissible to assume that the city had been 1 For the terms of the peace with Philip see the two most important sources: Polybius 18. 44 and Livy 33. 30. For the interpretation of these sources see G. De Sanctis, Storia dei Romani, IV, 1 (Turin, 1923), 95, and E. Taubler, Imperium Romanum (Leipzig, 1913). PP· 228-39. Of great value for the background and motives for the peace are M. Holleaux, C.A.H., VIII (1930), chap. VI, pp. 138-98 (Utudes d'epigraphie et d'histoire grecques, V [Paris, 1957], 320-86), and Accame, op. cit., pp. 197-208. 2

From 197 to 194 B.C. Flamininus was proconsul, but in 192 B.C. he was consul. However, it was in 195-194 B.C. that he visited Thessaly and organized it. Thus it may have been exactly in that period that the present letter was written. Cf. M. Holleaux, Στρατηγός "Υπατος (Paris, 1918), pp. 3-4, n. 3.

212

EPISTULAE

a subject of Philip. Thus, after Cynoscephalae, the property of the partisans in that city would have been confiscated by the Romans, an assumption supported by the letter itself (11. 8-10), which states that "all landed property and buildings belonging to the public domain of the Roman state" are to be returned to their owners. Flamininus, certainly acting in accordance with general instructions from Rome con­ cerning his official attitude toward the Greeks, not only frees the Greek cities that were not subject to the king of Macedon but also takes steps to win the future loyalty of the former Macedonian dependencies. These could pose a greater problem and a greater burden to Rome than any of the other cities. He feels himself justified, therefore, in dictating to them what steps should be taken for the future, for he must secure in all of Greece a state of affairs in harmony with Roman interests.3 Despite the fact that Chyretiae had been within the Macedonian sphere in the past, her confiscated lands are now to be returned to their rightful owners, if they can successfully establish their ownership. It is plain that Flamininus speaks as a representative of a generous Rome. It is equally plain that he speaks as a master and not an equal. For it is only by the good will and the graciousness of Rome, his letter implies, that the lands and possessions of Chyretiae are being returned. The returning of confiscated property appears superficially to be an act of generosity, a fine gesture to prove the good will and altruistic character of Romans, but actually it is a very practical and clever maneuver to convince the wealthy classes that Rome will look after their interests. It was designed basically, I think, to cause the wealthy to look to Rome as their protector and their patronus. Thus the Roman policy in Greece at this time was, as Badian has so vividly illustrated, not merely to free Rome from foreign commitments of a military or administrative nature, but also, more importantly, to plant the seed of Roman paternalism everywhere. This was the proper approach to the establishment of a Greek clientela on a grand scale. Free them and win the support of the wealthy, then withdraw.4 3 See F. M. Wood, Jr., "The Military and Diplomatic Campaign of T. Quinctius Flamininus in 198 B.C.," A.J.P., 62 (1941): 277-88. At the same time, of course, he may have been motivated by a sincere effort to secure the stability and prosperity of the vanous towns. 4

See Badian, Foreign Clientelae, pp. 69-83.

213

34 EPISTULA M. VALERII MESSALAE PRAETORIS AD TEIOS

193 B.C.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. E. Chisull, Antiquitates Asiaticae (London, 1728), p. 102, from a copy by Sherard; F. Hessel, Antiquae inscriptiones quum Graecae turn Latinae olim a Marquardo Gudio collectae (Leeuwarden, 1731), app. no. 3044, from a copy by Duker; A. Boeckh, C.I.G., II (1843), 3045; Le Bas-Waddington, Voyage archeologique en Grece et en Asie Mineure: Inscriptions, III (1870), 60; P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Gottingen, 1888), no. II, p. 2; W . Dittenberger, S.I.G.2, I (1898), 279; M. Holleaux, Revue des etudes anciennes, I (1899), 7 {Etudes d'epigraphie et d'histoire grecques, I [Paris, 1938], 357); C. Michel, Recueil d'inscriptions grecques (Brussels, 1900), no. 5 1 ; M. Holleaux, Klio, 13 (1913): 1 56-59 (Etudes d'epigraphie et d'histoire grecques, IV [Paris, 1952], 200-3); F. Hiller von Gaertringen, in W . Dittenberger, S.I.G.3, II (1917), 601; G. Lafaye, I.G.R.R., IV (1927), 1557; S. Accame, II dominio romano in Grecia dalla guerra acaica ad Augusto (Rome, 1946), pp. 51-52; D . Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), II, 943, n. 39; Lewis-Reinhold, Roman Civilization, I (New York, 1951), 310; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 20; S. Accame, Vespansione romana in Grecia (Naples, 1961), pp. 66-67.

D E S C R I P T I O N . A stone discovered among the ruins of the Temple of Dionysus on the site of the ancient Teos.

*Ρωμαίων. Μάρκος

Ούαλάριος

* ΊΓ'Ί Λ'

δήμωι 5

-

j

-

-

χαίρειν

σιλεως

Μάρκου ν

αποσταλείς

χειρισθεις

μενην

Μένιππος

άνεδωκεν

μετά

πάσης

αύτώι

μεν διόλου

πλείστον

--

ποιούμενοι

θεούς ευσέβειας,

του δαιμονίου·

ι

τούτωι

δε τον τε

άν­

προγεγενηκαλοκα-

εύνόως.

και

οτι

διατελοΰμάλιστ*

ήμεΐν

βα-

προ-

ακολούθως ήμεΐς

διηκούσαμεν

λόγον

του

περί της πόλεως,

και διά την

εκ της συναντωμενης

διά τ α ύ τ α παρά

214

'

δόξαν και διά την ύπάρχουσαν

μεν της προς τους 15

l

πρεσβευτής

και αυτός

φιλοφρόνως

και i

ο τε παρ* Άντιόχου

προθυμίας-

ycefltav περί τε ων ήζίου

χάζοιτο

t

■ ι

προς ημάς

δρα άπεδεζάμεθα ιο

~

και ύφ* ύμων πρεσβεΰσαι

τό τε ψήφισμα διελεχθη

i

στρατηγός

άν τι?

στο-

εύμενείας

ου μην αλλά και εξ

άλ-

EPISTULAE

λων πλειόνων

πεπεισμένα

την ήμετεραν

εις το θείον προτιμίαν.

συμφανη

τ α και δ ι ά την προς υμάς εϋνοιαν πρεσβευτήν 20

κρίνομεν

ραν ίεράν, λόγητον

καθώς

μεθα

σννεπαύζειν,

μετά

ταύτα

γεγονεναι διό καϊ δια τε τ α ύ ­

και διά τον ήζιω [μεν] ov

είναι την ττόλιν και τηγ

και νυν εστίν,

από του δήμου

τον θεόν τίμια

πάσι

και άσνλον

του * Ρωμαίων

χώκαι άφορο -

και τ ά τ€ εις

και τά εις υμάς φιλάνθρωπα διατηρούντων

την προς ημάς

υμών

εϋνοιαν.

πειρασό-

και εις νν

το

"Ερρωσθε.

Text by Viereck (notes). I In larger letters. 3 σύγκλητος, Dittenberger, repeated by Hiller, but Boeckh and Le Bas-Waddington indicate a nu instead of a gamma. 4 του omitted by Le BasWaddington, Dittenberger, and Hiller. 6 υπέρ, Boeckh; περί, Le Bas-Waddington. 7 ά[π]ε8ωκεν, Boeckh, but cf. Holleaux, Etudes, I, 357. 16 πάσι omitted by Le Bas-Waddington, Dittenberger, and Hiller. 17 προτιμίαν, stone, but Sauppe preferred to write προθυμίαν; however, since one finds τά €ΐς τον Oeov τίμια in 11. 21-22, as Hiller observed, the reading of the stone should be retained.

COMMENTARY. In the Hellenistic age the Teans had acquired considerable fame through their worship of Dionysus and the selection of their city as the headquarters of the Ionian and Hellespontine branch of the Dionysiac Artists. And when, in about 205 B.C., they decided to introduce a festival in honor of their patron god, they requested that numerous cities recognize the inviolability of their city. A large number of decrees from Greece and Crete testify to their success in this direction.1 And, after Cynoscephalae had impressed the Asiatic Greeks with the reality of Rome and her willingness to enter the arena of Greek politics, they decided to obtain similar recognition from Rome. 2 The praetor for 193 B.C., M. Valerius Messala, speaking for the people and the Senate, responded with the present letter granting, as one would expect at this time, all that the Teans had requested: the city as well as its land was to be "holy, as it now is, and inviolable and immune from taxation by the Roman people." The envoy Menippus is a known representative of Antiochus III, having been sent to Rome earlier in the same year. This could mean that, although Teos may have acquired some independence by this time, she still looked to the Seleucid king for protection and assistance in matters of this sort.3 As Holleaux has pointed out, a representative of Antiochus would be the natural intermediary at this particular time, for the Seleucid king was not yet an enemy of Rome and formal negotiations were still being conducted on a nominally friendly basis. N o hidden meaning should be suspected in the phrase which 1 See W . Ruge, R.E., s.v. "Teos," cols. 547-50; Holleaux, Utudes, IV, 178-203; Magie, loc. cit. The Cretan decrees may now be found in Inscriptiones Creticae, I no. 1*, p. 292; II, no. 21*, p. 161, and no. 3*, p. 197. 2 For the Tean tardiness in appealing to R o m e see Holleaux, Utudes, IV, 200-3. 3 Cf. Holleaux, Utudes, II, 96, n. 2, and IV, 20ofF. For Menippus in Rome see Livy 34. 57. off.; Diodorus 28. 15. 2ff.; and Appian Syr. 6.

215

10MAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

granted Teos immunity from Roman taxes, for this almost certainly is a simple statement ■ecognizing the city's immunity and freedom without any implication of Roman luthority in the area.4 Notice the appearance of the trihuni in the prescript. This is a very unusual feature. Accame, loc. cit.

216

35 EPISTULA LUCII CORNELII SCIPIONIS EIUSQUE FRATRIS AD HERACLEOTAS AD LATMUM

190 B.C.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. A. Boeckh, C.I.G., II (1843), 3800, based on a copy by Moustoxydis; W . Henzen, Annali dell* Institute archeologico, 24 (1852): 13 8fF.; Le Bas-Waddington, Voyage archeologique en Grece et en Asie Mineure: Inscriptions, III (1870), 588; E. L. Hicks, A Manual of Greek Historical Inscriptions (Oxford, 1882), no. 193; P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Gottingen, 1888), no. Ill, pp. 2 - 3 ; W . Judeich, Athen. Mitt., 15 (1890): 254; W . Dittenberger, S.I.G.2, I (1898), 287; B . Haussoullier, Revue de philologie, 23 (1899): 277-78; G. Colin, Rome et la Grece de 200 a 146 avantJ.-C. (Paris, 1905), pp. 202-3; M . Holleaux, Revue des etudes anciennes, 19 (1917): 2376°.; F. Hiller von Gaertringen, in W . Dittenberger, S.I.G.3, II (1917), 618; M. Holleaux, Στρατηγός Ύπατος (Paris, 1918), pp. 131-46; G. De Sanctis, Atti delV Accademia di Torino, 57 (1921/22): 242fF.; M . Holleaux, Rivista difilologia, 52 (1924): 29-44; S.E.G., II (1924), 566; Abbott-Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton, 1926), no. 4, p. 253; G. I. Luzzatto, Epigrafia giuridica greca e romana (Milan, 1942), pp. I25flf.; S. Accame, // dominio romano in Grecia dalla guerra acaica ad Augusto (Rome, 1946), pp. 52-53; D . Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), II, 949, n. 58; Lewis-Reinhold, Roman Civilization, I (New York, 1951), pp. 313fF.; F. Ceruti, Epigraphica, 17 (1955): 127, 132; H. H. Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos (Munich, 1957), p. 130, n. 2 ; E. Badian, Foreign Clientelae (Oxford, 1958), p. 88; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 23.

[Λεύκιος Κορνήλιος Σκιπίων] [καΐ Πόπλιος [μωι χαίρειν] σιος, 5

[Ευ]δήμος,

[φιλοτι]μίας· [πίστιμ], ιο

Δίας, Διης,

πρόνοιαμ ποιεΐσθαι

διακείμεν[οι]

υμών εις την

ημετερα[μ]

την ενδεχομενην, αεί τίνος αγαθού

συγχωροΰμεν

δε ύμΐν την τε ελευθερίαγ

[ταΐς aJAAccis' πόλεσιν, οσαι ημΐν την επιτροπην [αυτού? 7τά]ντα τά αύτώ/χ πολιτεύεσθαι [και εν τ] οΐς άλλοις πειρασόμεθα

παράλ­

καθότι και

έδωκαν, εχουσιν

κατά τους υμετέρους

εύχρηστοΰντες

ακολού­

ούδεν ε?] -

ντου και τών περ[1 τον Καθηγεμό] ]ΚΡΑΤ[

-

]

3-4 For the combination "Dionysus and the other g o d s " KlafFenbach refers to Fouilles de Delphes, HI, 2, 7, 1. 45. 6 T h e new squeeze clearly shows AN. .ΣΦΟ.ΟΥΣ. 7-8 ήλι[κίαν άνδρικην, Wilamowitz; ήλι[κίαν ελθωσι, Dittenberger; ήλι[κίαν την προσηκουσαν, Viereck (notes). 10 [Λεύκιος Μόμμιος], KlafFenbach; [Μάαρκος Λείβιος], Accame. 13 KlafFenbach suggests και τοις υπό] Κράτ[ωνος Ζωτίχου συν\ηγμενοις Άτταλισταΐς χαίρειν] aut similia.

COMMENTARY.

Here we have the remains of two ofFicial Roman letters addressed

to the guilds of Dionysiac Artists, the first almost certainly to the Isthmian-Nemean guild, the second to the Ionian-Hellespontine.

The author of the second one, whose

name would have appeared in line 10, could have been either a consul or a proconsul.1 Not enough of this letter is extant to allow us to form any idea of its contents, but the fact that it is addressed to the Ionian-Hellespontine guild is interesting.

N o positive

and satisfactory reason has ever been given to account for such a letter's being published in Thebes.2

The first letter grants the members of the Isthmian-Nemean guild the

privileges of freedom from local liturgies, from the burden of giving quarters to military personnel, and from every kind of tax, both for themselves and their families. The most debated question raised by this inscription concerns the identity ot the writer. All early scholars interested in the text believed, in varying degrees of certainty, that he 1

Holleaux, op. cit., pp. 1-2, n. 2. The title στρατηγός ύπατος could mean consul or proconsul. The only scholar, to my knowledge, who has seriously tried to explain the presence of the second letter in the city of Thebes is KlafFenbach, and, although certainly not positive or completely ac­ ceptable, his explanation is worthy of notice: "Graecia in potestatem Romanorum redacta illius collegii technitas et ipsos eos adisse, ut sibi liceret etiam posthac veteribus privilegiis usos professionem suam in Graecia quoque administrare; in quibus optatis explendis videtur etiam constitutum esse de horum artiftcum ratione et cum Atheniensibus et cum iis εξ Ίσθμοΰ και Νεμέας intercedenda, sicut id etiam de his duobus factum esse infra videbimus. Itaque collegium εξ *Ισθμού και Νεμέας et hanc epistulam in lapide incidendam curaverat." (KlafFenbach, op. cit., p. 28.) Poland op. cit., col. 2510) doubts that the Ionian-Hellespontine guild was even mentioned in the second letter, but I cannot see how the final lines of our second letter can exclude it. For possible points of contact between the two guilds see ibid., col. 2504; cf. A. Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens (Oxford, 1953), pp. 293-94 and 317. 2

25 0

EPISTULAE

was L. Mummius, who, as consul in 146 B.C., destroyed the Achaean army and razed Corinth. Doubts have been expressed, but no serious effort has been made to disprove the identification. Some support for believing Mummius to be the author was found in the fact that he looked with favor upon the Artists in general.3 Certainly the de­ struction of Corinth and the disarmament of Thebes must have been detrimental to the prosperity of the Isthmian-Nemean guild. For these reasons one would expect the guild to approach the Roman authorities with a request for recognition of their pre­ viously privileged position in Greek society. Mummius and the ten commissioners would have been the obvious officials to contact. Hence the name Lucius Mummius was supplied in the lacuna of line 10. Silvio Accame, however, argued that these letters should be interpreted in light of the events portrayed in the S.C. de Collegiis Artificum Bacchiorum of 112 B.C. (above, No. 15). In that decree of the Senate, concerning a quarrel between the Athenian and IsthmianNemean guilds about the loss of money and various obstructionist tactics, we learn that both guilds are to appear before Marcus Livius, governor of Macedonia, who is in­ structed to render a decision in the matter of the misappropriated funds (11. 61-64). 4 The decree also informs us that the Isthmian-Nemean guild had made a request of the Senate to have its old privileges preserved (1. 48). Accordingly, Accame felt that the present letters were connected with this incident. He restored the name Marcus Livius in line 10 of the second letter and dated both letters 112-111 B.C. "con quasi assoluta certezza." Accame also saw in the first letter, lines 1-2, what he considered to be proof that at that time Greece was divided into two parts, one united with the province of Macedonia, the other independent. Although Accame has apparently solved the old riddle of the status of Greece after the destruction of Corinth in 146 B.C. by the use of this inscription and many other references, he has by no means proved that our two letters are to be dated 112-111 B.C.5 In the first place M. Livius Drusus had been instructed by the terms of the decree (No. 15,11. 61-64) t o conduct a hearing concerning the public or common funds belonging to the two guilds and to render a decision in that matter. Nothing was said anywhere in the decree about permission for him or anyone else to honor the request of the IsthmianNemean guild about recognition of its ancient privileges. But Accame asks us to believe 3 Tacitus {Ann. 14. 21) says that after the annexation of Achaea and Asia ludos curatius editos, nee quemquam Romae honesto loco ortum ad theatralis artes degeneravisse, ducentis iam annis a L. Mummii triumpho, qui primus id genus spectaculi in urbe praebuerit. From this it has been concluded that Mummius imported Greek actors to present his triumphal plays in R o m e ; see Klaffenbach, op. cit., p. 28, and M. Bieber, The History of the Greek and Roman Theater2 (Princeton, 1961), p. 168. And, although one might object to such an interpretation of the passage, it is clear that Mummius must have favored the Greek theatrical performances. Hence it is likely that he would have looked with favor upon the Dionysiac Artists. 4 wepi 8e χρημάτων δημοσίων η κοινών nepi ων λόγους €ποίήσαντο, όπως προς Μάαρκον Λζίβίον ΰπατον προσέλθωσαν, οΰτός re ζπνγνώι Ιπικρίνηι οΰτως καθώς (αν) αύτώί e/c τών οημοσίων πραγμάτων πίστ€ως re ίδία(ς) φαίνηται. s For an appraisal of Accame's view on the status of Greece in this period see M. Gelzer, loc. cit., and H. Bengtson, loc. cit.

251

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

that a second such request was made and granted at the time when the two guilds presented themselves before M. Livius Drusus, or, if not then, on some other occasion connected with similar matters. However, we must not forget that in the quarrel between the two guilds the final verdict of the Senate in 112 B.C. was to uphold the Athenian cause, not that of the Isthmian-Nemean guild. The period of 112-111 B.C. was certainly not one in which the Isthmian-Nemean guild enjoyed good relations with Rome. Secondly, Accame has failed to explain why M. Livius Drusus sent a letter to the Ionian-Hellespontine guild. Since he supplied Livius* name in line 10, he must assume that Livius wrote both letters. What is the connection, therefore, between the two letters ? Why would Marcus Livius Drusus write to the Dionysiac Artists in Ionia and the Hellespont ? Considering the present state of our evidence, these questions must be answered before we can assume that Livius is the author of the letters. In the way of positive evidence for the date there are, in my opinion, only two facts worthy of mention. The mention of τη 'Ρωμαίων επαρχζίαι in line 2 must refer to the Macedonian province as established after the Achaean War of 146 B.C., and the title of the official in line 10, στρατηγός ύπατος *Ρωμαί[ων], would indicate a date within the second century B.C.6 An additional piece of information is obtained if it is estab­ lished that both letters were written by the same official, for then it might be theorized that they were written at a time when some far-reaching considerations of the status of all the guilds of Dionysiac Artists were under way. If this is true, there is more reason to ascribe the letters to Mummius than to Livius. The first real annexation of Greek land and the first formation of a Roman province in the Greek East would have been visible evidence of a change in Rome's policy in dealing with the countries of that area. Mummius and his commissioners would have had the power at that time to grant or confirm general privileges for the various guilds. 6

Holleaux, op. cit., pp. 1-9, has shown that the title began to disappear about 120-115 B.C. Its last occurrence appears to have been in 112-111 B.C. (Inscriptiones Creticae, III, 4, no. 9,1. 11; cf. Accame, op. cit., pp. 3-4).

2S2

45 EPISTULA (MAGISTRATES ROMANI?) DE ARBITRORUM IUDICIO

Second Century B.C.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. P. Monceaux, B.C.H., η (1883), no. 9, pp. 57-59; O. Kern, I.G., IX, 2 (1908), 301 (from a copy by Giannopoulos).

DESCRIPTION. A marble block, broken on both sides and at the bottom, very worn in the middle section, found in the wall of a church in Trikkala, Thessaly. Height: 0.33 m. Width: 0.40 m. Thickness: 0.37 m. Height of letters: 0.003 m ·

]ΝΣΥΝ[

]

e'Jm το π [ρ] ο? Τρί[κ]καν μέρη και άγαγόντ€ς ήμά[ς inl] ]ΤΟ7ΤΌΙ> έπίδζιζαν ήμΐν τό(ν) οικξΐον πα[-

]

]ν ώς αφ* ηλίου δυσμών τη χώραι ταύτη [

]

- - - -]έφασαν είναι [Άγαθ] ο μένους καΐ καλ[€Ϊσθαι υπό των] - έγδίκω]ν Δζρκαίαν [

] 7τλ€ΐστ[- -

- - TOV ο] LK€LOV 67U [ . . . ] Π[ ]ό Άγαθομένης

-]

] VOLS [

]

[. . . . ]eiov του [τ]€ΐχ[ους

^πζδζίαν [

]

] τούτου τ[οΰ

]

- - ο/χ] ορον ώς από των προς Τρί(κ)καν μ€ρ [ων

]

] ήμΐν ol εγδικοι την τ€ Ά [στ] ακίδα και η[

]

- γ€ΐτο]ν€υούσας ταύτη χώραι, ην αυτοί [ 1

.,„.»

j:

„._.

Γ_'..*

η\ι

λ

..

'

] Γ*

3

] υπάρχει, ην αυτοί λέγουσι Δζρκαίαν [- - λ] αβών 8e και Άγαθομένης τον λόγ [ον - έγδ]ικοι Ζφασαν καλεΐσθαι Δερκαί[αν

]

]ν καλεΐσθαι Βουκολικόν την μ[

]

- - -]οστ7[ν] πηκτην, ην οι εγδικοι τη[

]

- - -] την τ€ όδόν, έφ* fj τη [ν] καλουμ [ένην - - -]ναι, ην οι έγδικοι έπ[

] ώς από μ€[ρών

]ΕΧΟΝΤ[

253

]

]/Τ[

]

]

]

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

The text is that of Kern and Viereck (notes.) 2 κα[τ]αγόντ€ς, Wilamowitz. 3 ΤΟΠΟΙΚΕΙΟΝ, stone, corrected by Wilamowitz. 8 [τ]οΰ [τ]€ΐ'χ[ου?, Hiller.

COMMENTARY. Boundary disputes between Greek cities were very common and are well illustrated in the inscriptions. The precise topographical descriptions in the present document make it very clear that we are dealing here with a land dispute. However, it appears not to have been a case involving two cities but rather a city and a private person, namely, the city of Trikkala and an individual called Agathomenes. The lands in question are called Δςρκούα ζηά-Βουκολικόν. Using the parallel example of C.I.G., 1732 (7.G., IX, 1, 61), as a guide, Monceaux believed that the city of Trikkala, represented by its e/cSi/cot, disputed with Agathomenes over certain areas of land nearby.1 To settle the dispute a judge was appointed (by the consul and/or the Senate ?) to investigate the claims. He and his assessors would have gone to see the land itself and then would have rendered a decision. The present document in its entirety would have contained a short history of the dispute, his decision, and the future boundary and ownership of the land. Only a part of the topographical description is extant. Two questions arise. Who was the judge, a Roman or a local individual ? Who sent the present report, the judge himself or some other intermediary agency ? N o positive answers can be given. Monceaux, Kern, and Viereck (notes) all believe that it is the letter of a Roman magistrate to Trikkala. Possibly, but not positively. There is nothing in the document itself that would suggest such a conclusion. The entire matter could have been handled on a strictly local level without recourse to Roman intervention. Of course, if the document belongs to the second century B.C., as seems apparent from the lettering, the possibility of Roman involvement must be considered. The example of C.I.G., 1732 (J.G., IX, 1, 61), while it also is a case of a city disputing with a private person the ownership of a strip of land, should not be pressed too far. Our document belongs to the second century B.C., the other to the period of Hadrian. 1 I . G . , IX, 1, 61, from Daulis in Phocis, is dated in the year A.D. 118 and is a dossier ot a dispute between Daulis and an individual named Memmius Antiochus over certain areas of land. Cassius Maximus, proconsul of Achaia in A.D. 116/17, appointed T. Flavius Eubolus to act as the judge. The case required one to two years to complete. The judge listened to both parties and then visited the land in question. His decision was to divide the land between the city and Memmius Antiochus. In that case, as well as in the present one, the city employed its legal representatives, the Ικδικοι, to meet with the judge and to present the city's claim. As city officials they functioned in purely local matters as well as in those cases involving the Romans. Their presence in our document, therefore, cannot be construed to mean that Rome or R o m a n officials had a hand in the case. O n their duties see Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, I, 648-49, and II, 1517-18, n. 49.

254

46 EPISTULA (MAGISTRATES ROMANI?) AD CYPARISSENSES

Second or First Century B.C.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. N. S. Valmin, Kungl. Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundet i Lund, Arsberdttelse, 1928-29, no. 11, pp. 142-43 (Plate XIX a) (S.E.G., XI, 1025).

DESCRIPTION. Stele of gray limestone, broken on the left and bottom, decorated with rosettes, with an ornamental pediment. Found at Christianoi, southeast of Philiatra, in Messenia. Height: 0.58 m. Width: 0.44 m. Thickness: 0.12 m. Height of the letters diminishes from 0.018 m. in lines 1-2 to 0.010 m. in the last line. Letters belong to the second or first century B.C. and are decorated with apices.

[Άγαθψ]

5

rosette Τύχηι. vacat [ Ό SeZva - - ca.20 - - των Κ\υπαρισσεων άρχονσυ κοά rrj [πόλζι] vacat χαίραν. [ ά] πολ€λ€χθαι υπ Ιμου την [ ]ων €ποιησάμην των [ - - - -]ου βαλαντίου του

[

Μ

]

In regard to the bath, it was noted by Valmin that the modern village had an abundance of good water. Could the author of the letter have been the governor of Macedonia?

255

47 EPISTULAE Q. MUCH SCAEVOLAE DE SARDIANORUM ET EPHESIORUM FOEDERE

BIBLIOGRAPHY. E. Sonne, De arbitris externis, quos Graeci adhibuerunt ad lites et intestinas et peregrinas componendasy quaestiones epigraphicae (Diss., Gottingen, 1888), no. 47, p. 26; M. Frankel, Die Inschriften von Pergamon, II (Berlin, 1895), no. 268, pp. 196-203; P. Foucart, Revue de philologie, 25 (1901): 871T.; W . Dittenberger, O.G.I.S., II (1905), 437; Μ. Ν. Tod, International Arbitration Amongst the Greeks (Oxford, 1913), no. 60, pp. 40-41; G. Lafaye, I.G.R.R., IV (1927), 297; G. I. Luzzatto, Epigrafia giuridica greca e romana (Milan, 1942), pp. χ 33—35 i D· Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), II, 1064; T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, II ( N e w York, 1952), 5-6, n. 2 (on Scaevola's governorship of Asia); L. Robert, Revue des etudes anciennes, 62 (i960): 342-46.

DESCRIPTION. Three fragments (A, B, C) of bluish-white marble, found at Pergamum in 1883-84. Fragment A contains the last few letters of the lines (1-7) in column 1 and the beginnings of the lines (26-32) in column 2. It is broken on all sides, the letters of the heading (line 1) being larger (0.015 m · ) than those of the remainder of the text. Fragment Β contains the ends of the lines (26-32) in column 2. It is complete only on its lower right side. Because the restorations here appear to be assured Frankel has calculated that column 2 must have been about 0.32 m. wide and that the width of the upper part of the whole stele was about 0.65 m. Fragment C, broken on all sides, is 0.305 m. high, 0.345 m. wide, and 0.06 m. thick, containing lines 8-25 of column 1 and lines J4"3/

r 1 OL CUXUlllLl ±.

i-f-i 1 · 1 r 1 1 11 .1 r . r.. 1 U C llClgllL UI LUC ICtiCli UU a i l Uli.CC Ι1«1£11ΙΛΛΛ»..Ι, 4p επιΓ[- - ] €Ι/ °||| [ τ]ου? νόμους [- - - -

■)

]τ€[

····]!

νων

καί

του

[~ "

]Ae[ ] ουμ [ - - ~]ον [ ]—σ[

]ματα καί 7τυ[ ] μοι κατά τη [ν - · ηνε]γκάμην ύπ[ ] την σπουδ[ην ]ι>ι και εις υμάς Γ[ ] eiSevai θέλω κ[ ■ α] υτος την επα [ρχ€ΐαν ( ?)

- - J ζπ1 ξένω^ [

(ΐ2 lines missing) 226 a

[... .,.,... . . . Ίο KntvW]™ Τ[

4θ

45

}n[

}

[. . ] \ρας [ ] επ* ακυρώσει ώ[ν] άνείλ[ηφε καί Μάρ[κω\ι Κικερ[ων]ι συντυχών ευχαρίστησε [τά ταχ·] θεντα επ[ιμ]ελώς συντηρών τά επ* εμ[οι μη δια( ?)-] λύειν. όθεν πώς ύμεις την τίνων περί [ταύτα ά-] ναιδειαν άνεσχησθε, τεθαύμακαδι* ά? [αίτια?] προς τε το κοινόν των *'Ελλήνων γέγραφα, [προς] [ύ]μας, Έφεσίους, Τραλλιανούς, Άλαβανδεΐς, Μ[υ-] [AjaCTCty, Σμυρναίους, Περγαμηνούς, Σαρ8ιανο[ύς,] 'Αδραμυτηνούς, ίνα τε ύμεΐς προς τάς εν τηι 8[ιοι-] [κ]ησει τηι ιδιαι πόλεις 8ιαποστείλησθε εν τε τώι επ[ι-] φανεστάτωι τόπωι εν στυλοπαραστάδι επι λίθου λευκού ενχαραχθήναι φροντίσητε τ[αυ-]

273

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

50

τ α τ ά γράμματα, δίκαιον

Ινα κοινώς

ίσταμένον

λαι πάσαι

πόλεις

ποιησωσιν,

και δήμοι

το αύτον

κοΐς έγραψα,

μη €πιζητησητ€'

[μ] ένα νοήσαι [Τι]μοκλήι [πρ]€σβ€υταΐς [δρ]αη.

νν

κατά

την δβ επιστολή και Σωσικράτηι

Μαγνητών

των προς τ[ώι

τά

[φυλά-] 4λλη[νι-]

νουν γαρ

έλασσον

δύνησθζ-

€ρρωσθ€.

αύτοΐς νομό

δι ην

Άναξαγόρου

το]

α ι τ € αλ-

παρ

την 8e αίτίαν

χον, μη τι παρά την 4ρμην€ΐαν

6ο

τ ψ €παρχ€ΐα[ι

€ΐς r e τ ά δ ρ ο σ ι ά άποθώνται

κια και χρηματιστήρια, 55

πάσηι

ηι €ΐς τον αΐ€ΐ χρόνον,

[£σ-] [γ€γραμ-]

[ν

έδωκα] Πυ[θίωνος] Μαιάν-]

vacat vacat

Restorations by Friedrich, Wilamowitz, and R e h m . 23 I suggest στρατηγός] em feVcu[i/](?). 51 Prienean copy begins with €ΐ]ς τον aUi κτλ. 55 Prienean copy has ίσ[χον. 58 Τιμοκλζϊ 'Αναξα[γόρου, Σωσικ]ράτ€ΐ Πυθίωνος, Priene. 60 Prienean copy lacks ερρωσθζ but employs the paragraphos in its place.

COMMENTARY. Some event or condition in the province or Asia, unknown to us but certainly one of importance, caused the writer to compose this letter. He is amazed to see how the Greeks have endured the shamelessness of certain people (11. 41-42) and for that reason has decided to write to the koinon of Asia, to the peoples of Miletus, Ephesus, Tralles, Alabanda, Mylasa, Smyrna, Pergamum, Sardis, and Adramyttium.l Each of those cities, certainly the centers of the Asian conventus, is given instructions to 1 According to the original editors, as well as Robert and Magie, Miletus is to be included in the list. The supposition is that the present letter was addressed to the city of Miletus directly—it was found in the bouleuterion of Miletus—and that the phrase [προς ύ]μάς must refer to the Milesians. The writer evidently had ten copies of his letter prepared, one for the koinon of Asia and the others for the judi­ ciary centers. Each one would have carried the name of the addressee in the salutation, but in the list of cities which followed the phrase [προς ύ] μας its name would have been omitted. There would have been no need to say προς υμάς Μιλησίους. Such is the normal way of interpreting iiiut pui«iac: If wt would suppose that ihe names of die "Cicics following \πρυς ύ]μάς weie merely in apposition to that phrase, we would have to assume that the salutations in all nine letters were identical, perhaps τοις em της Ασίας "Ελλησιν χαίρ€ΐν ant similia. This was possible but not very likely. If true, it would mean that Miletus was not a judiciary center at all and that the presence of the letter in its bouleuterion meant the same thing as it did in the case of Priene: it was sent there for publication by a judiciary center in compliance with general instructions (11. 46-50). Jones, in fact, did not make Miletus a judiciary center, but his reason for not doing so was based on a misunder­ standing of the letter (see Robert and Magie). Since the writer, almost certainly the Governor of Asia, had also written an identical letter to the koinon of Asia, which in turn would have disseminated the information in the letter to all its many members, it seems more likely that he would have ad­ dressed the nine letters individually to the judiciary centers. A directive separately addressed adds to the importance of the matter. The finger is pointed, so to speak. General directives were channeled through the koinon. Personal, individual responsibility was assigned through direct com­ munication. For these reasons I believe that the first interpretation is the correct one and that Miletus had been a judiciary center in the middle of the first century B.C. By the age of Augustus conditions had changed and other arrangements were made.

274

EPISTULAE

transmit his letter to the smaller cities in its district, and the letter is to be published and preserved in each of the various archives. The writer then adds a most unusual statement about his reason for writing in Greek, viz., in order that the Greeks might not mis­ understand his meaning (11. 55-57). He appears to have taken advantage of the fact that two envoys from Magnesia happen to be present, for he asks them to deliver his letter. Such are the bare facts. Who is the writer and what is the date? The answers depend upon the correct interpretation of two pieces of information: the mention of Cicero and the list of cities. There seems to be little or no doubt that the cities are the centers of the Asian conventus, but a comparison with the list preserved by Pliny (N.H. 5. 105-26), which reflects the conditions of the Augustan age in general, shows several variations. These may be seen best in tabular form: Pliny

Letter

Ephesus Alabanda Smyrna Pergamum Sardis Adramyttium *Cibyra *Synnada *Apameia

*Miletus Ephesus *Tralles Alabanda *Mylasa Smyrna Pergamum Sardis Adramyttium

Note: The starred entries of one list are missing in the other.

For our present purpose the most important point to be noted here is the omission of the Phrygian judiciary centers of Cibyra, Synnada, and Apameia from the list given in the letter. It is important because we know that between 56 and 50 B.C. those three centers belonged to the province of Cilicia, but that before and after those dates they belonged to Asia.2 Hence the date of our letter must fall within the period 56-50 B.C., . „ J ..v.., r^:„ anu

-,Π:-,^ ,

„,. U r Λ

_ Λ «.~ r

3

„ J „,.,.♦.„-

r

l i i v •^/±\*\*i.\s \JL l i n t j y i i i U J i . UL wliv, O i d l O I dJ»^i ^«.•^ί.^ύΐΐΐα.ΐΐ.

Μ

Τ\-11:—

I»... JL ciAAxUO

r\n~— ^I^IW.

The combination of such a date and such a notable Roman figure suggests that the writer of the letter is Q. Minucius Q. f. Thermus, governor of Asia in 51-50 B.C.3 The evidence for this is circumstantial rather than direct. Cicero is most likely to have been named in a governor's letter to the cities of Asia during the time in which he himself was governor of Cilicia (51-50 B.C.), for then he would have been more closely involved in the affairs of Asia Minor. He is known to have been on very friendly terms with Thermus in the course of that year and to have written to him on many occasions for a 2

For the Asian judiciary districts in general see Magie, op. cit., I, 171-72, and II, 1059-63, nn. 41-42, and Robert, loc. cit. For the Phrygian districts see J. Marquardt, Romische Staatsverwaltung, I 2 (Leipzig, 1881), 335-36; R. Syme, in Anatolian Studies Presented to William Hepburn Buckler, ed. W. M. Calder and J. Keil (Manchester, 1939), pp. 301-5; Magie, op. cit., II, 1060, n. 41, and 1245, n. 18. 3 For his governorship see the references in Broughton, Magistrates, II, 243, and Magie, op. cit., I, 399.

275

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

variety of reasons.4

One final piece of information may also have a bearing on the

present letter: Cicero had passed through the province of Asia in 51 B.C., on his way to Cilicia.

On that occasion he had met Thermus in Ephesus before proceeding into

the interior.

And on his return to Italy the following year he had again stopped at

Ephesus while awaiting transportation.5

The possibility is that Cicero may have

noticed something while passing through Asia and later brought it to the attention either of Thermus or some other official.

This in turn prompted the letter.

There are,

however, no facts to substantiate such a possibility. Turning to the contents of the letter and the nature of the information communicated to the cities of Asia, we are almost hopelessly in the dark.

Isolated expressions such as

"false" (1. 6), "Ephesus" (in Ephesus?) (1. 12), "laws" (1. 14), and "I was forced b y . . . " (1. 18) are not sufficient in themselves to be of much help.

But that it is a matter about

which Cicero had some knowledge I am almost certain.

I am led to this belief by the

statement (11. 37-41) that someone, perhaps a subordinate in the officium of the governor of Asia, had met with Cicero. at hand.

Surely that meeting was not unconnected with the matter

W h y else would the writer have mentioned it?

Official letters from the

Roman government may be courteous in their approach, colorful in language at times, and occasionally verbose, but they are never given to idle remarks or extraneous pieces of information.

Whatever is said has some connection with the subject.

In the present

instance, however, w e do not have the means to discover what it was. 6 *Ad Fam. 13. 53 (Cilicia, 51 B.C., letter of recommendation); ibid., 54 (Laodicea, 50 B.C., personal matter); ibid., 55 (Cilicia, 51 B.C., recommendation); ibid., 56 (Cilicia, 51 B.C., concerning the fact that several Asian cities owe Cluvius, a friend of Cicero's, a great deal of money); ibid., 57 (Laodicea, 50 B.C., request that Thermus send Cicero's legate M . Anneius back to Cilicia from Asia); cf. also Ad Fam. 2. 18; Ad Att. 5. 13. 2; 20. 10; 21. 14. 5

O n his way to Cilicia in 51 B.C., Cicero arrived at Ephesus in July and met Thermus {Ad Att. 5. 13). On his return to R o m e in 50 B.C., however, he left Cilicia by boat by way of Rhodes and was de­ layed twenty days on the trip from Rhodes to Ephesus. At Ephesus itself he was further delayed until October 1 {Ad Att. 6. 8). 6 T w o possibilities, however, present themselves for consideration. T h e first is that while passing through Asia in July of 51 B.C. Cicero may have noticed or heard of infringement of the Lex Iulia de ^ - . . ^ . . t *..,£..;■ ^

t

J y AJ._.

M

ij_i„ ιαν< p i u v : u v . u HUCi u>li~ i.\JL a. H U l l l U . .

Ui i ^ j L i i w l l c a j LU LfC ^IdLCU Up Oil

R o m a n public officials in the provinces. They were forbidden, for example, to accept any sort of gift in the administration ofjustice or to accept anything from the provincials while traveling through their country, except shelter and the necessities of life (cf. Magie, op. cit., I, 380, and II, 1243, n. 8, for details and references). Cicero, who at the time prided himself a great deal on his strict observance of its provisions (cf. Ad Att. 5. 21. 5; ibid., 10. 2; ibid., 16. 3; ibid., 6. 7. 2; ibid., 15. 11.), would clearly have been told by surprised (?) provincials in the interior of any cases concerning its infringement. The absence of any such reference in his letters to Thermus, however, does not make this possibility a very likely one. The second possibility is that the letter concerns business dealings of some sort, as suggested by the editors in the edition of the Milesian copy (Knackfuss, op. cit., p. 102). In this regard the letter to Thermus {Ad Fam. 13. 56) may be pertinent. In it we leam that Cluvius of Puteoli, a wealthy banker with investments throughout the province of Asia, is afraid that he will lose all his interests in the province unless he can secure the help of the governor. The people of Mylasa, Alabanda, Heraclea, Bargylia, and Caunus all owe him money but will not or cannot pay. Cicero outlines the situation for Thermus and adds at the end that the matter is so important that Cn. Pompeius himself is worried. Such a piece of business might be sufficiently large to cause Thermus finally to compose a letter in order to make known his decision to all the cities. I therefore find this second possibility at least worth consideration. Perhaps even Pompey's investments were involved.

276

53 EPISTULA MAGISTRATES ROMANI AD ILIENSES

First Century B.C.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. A. Bruckner, in W. Dorpfeld, Troia und Ilion (Athens, 1902), nos. XVI-XVII, pp. 457-58; G. Lafaye, I.G.R.R., IV (1927), 199; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), II, 1258, n. 3.

DESCRIPTION. No. XVI: four fragments of a block found at Ilium in a well (B a) of the Temple of Athena. Of these fragments, A and Β join together with an over-all height of 0.23 m. and width of 0.145 rn. Height of letters: 0.015 m · Reproduced by Bruckner, loc. cit. Fragment C: height, 0.05 m.; width, 0.035 m · Fragment D: height, 0.05 m.; width, 0.036 m. The height of the letters in C and D is the same as in A-B. No. XVII: one fragment, the dimensions of which are not given by Bruckner, found in the same location as no. XVI, and probably belonging to the same text as no. XVI.

XVI

7λ]ιάδ|

7 - ,

• - - e\v τωι ιερωι ■ ]ους έγραφα ■ την πόλιν υμών ζΐν]αι iXevdepav • - - - - και άλ€ΐτ] ουργητον • - - - -j άπαντα και ■ - - - iv νόμοις U]pols vacat • σνγ]γ€ν€ΐς ■ 8ό]ξαν

Άθη]νας [- -] --]oy[---]

277

D

[- -]υμ[ [--Μ

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

xvn ]o Upa>[i της Αθηνάς] της Ίλιά[8ος ]ι/ρ/χου?[

--] ]

Α - Β 3 One should not exclude εγράψα\ [/xev]. 7 Bruckner refers to Die Inschrifien von Pergamon, 246,11. 61-62; το 8e ψήφισμα τόδε [/cjupiov elvcu els άπαντα τον χρόνον | /cat κατ[α]τ€[07}ι>]αι αυτό £ν νόμο[ι.ς ι\€[ροΐς],

COMMENTARY. Strabo (13. ι. 26-27) tells us that Ilium was only a village with a small temple of Athena until Alexander visited it after his victory at the Granicus. He is said to have given it the title of city, adorned the temple, and decreed that the city was to be free and exempt from tribute.1 After Alexander's death Lysimachus built a wall around the city and joined the neighboring cities to it (synoikismos). For a time there­ after, however, it seems to have fallen into bad times, but then it was improved very greatly. In 205 B.C., by the terms of the Treaty of Phoenice, it was recognized by the Romans as independent and under Roman protection.2 After 188 B.C. we know from Livy (38. 39. 10) that Ilium was given control over both Rhoeteum and Gergithus. It was therefore a free city.3 Much later, in the course of the first Mithridatic War, it was captured by Fimbria and suffered greatly.4 But, when Sulla emerged triumphant and Fimbria lay dead, Ilium's previous status was confirmed by a grant of freedom.5 Little more than a generation later Julius Caesar not only preserved that freedom (and immunity from taxation, Strabo adds) but also gave land to Ilium.6 The Romans, of course, were very well disposed toward Ilium because of the tradition that Aeneas had been their founder. The additional legend that the Julian gens could be traced all the way back to lulus caused Julius Caesar to be all the more anxious to display his respect toward the city. It is not surprising, therefore, to discover that in Pliny's time Ilium was still immunis.7 Bruckner, on the basis of the letter forms and the report of Strabo, believed that the present document originated in the arrangement made by Caesar for the status of the 1 Jones, Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, p. 40, discounts Strabo's statement that Alexander declared Ilium a city "as due to Strabo's theory that Ilium was a mere village hitherto." 2 For the controversy about the "inclusion" of Ilium in the treaty see the summary by Magie, op. cit., II, 744-46, n. 35. 3 The mere fact that it was rewarded at this time must mean that it continued to be free. Magie, op. cit.t I, 108; Jones, op. cit., p. 53. 4 Strabo 13. 1. 27; Appian Mithr. 53; Livy Epit. 83. s Appian Mithr. 61. 6 Strabo 13. 1. 27; Lucan Phar. 9. o6iff., esp. 998; cf. Magie, op. cit.t I, 405, and II, 1258, n. 3. 7 Pliny N.H. 4. 7. 8; 5. 124.

278

EPISTULAE

city. He did not call it a letter, but the use of the first person in fragment A-B, line 3, and the possibility of a pronoun of the second person in fragment D would certainly identify it as such. The date in the first century B.C. would point to a Roman magistrate, but whether he is Sulla, Caesar, or someone else I cannot decide. More evidence is needed. The writer, however, clearly confirms a grant of freedom and immunity to the city.

279

54 EPISTULA C. IULII CAESARIS AD PERGAMENOS

After Pharsalus

BIBLIOGRAPHY. A. Passerini, Athenaeum, 15 (1937): 273~75; M. Segre, Athenaeum, 16 (1938): 119-27; L. Robert, in Anatolian Studies Presented to William Hepburn Buckler, ed. W. M. Calder and J. Keil (Manchester, 1939), pp. 227-30; M. I. RostovtzefF, S.E.H.H.W., III (1941), 1527-28, n. 98; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), II, 1258-59, n. 3.

DESCRIPTION. Part of the dossier which contained the 5.C. de Agro Pergameno (No. 12), from Smyrna. The letters are of the same form and size as those of the senatorial decree. Called fragment e by Passerini. If the width of all the columns in that dossier is the same, then the number of letters in each line of the present letter would average from about 58, minimum, to about 75, maximum. Precise figures, however, cannot be given, because of the irregularity in the spacing.

280

EPISTULAE

5

[Γάιος 'Ιούλιος Καίσαρ] αύτοκ [ράτωρ, άρχιερεύς και δικτάτωρ το β' Περγαμηνών άρχουσι] [βουλή δήμω χαίρει]ν ει ερρω[σθε} ευ άν 2χοι· ύγίαινον δε αυτός μετά του στρατεύματος.] [υμϊν άντίγραφον τ] ου επικρίμα [τος άπεσταλκα του γεγονότος περί της χώρας της ύμΐν] [προσωρισμενηςπ]ερι ων Μιθ[ραδάτης Μηνοδότου πολίτης υμέτερος και φίλος μου] [Aoyous* εποιησατ]ο, περί τούτ[ου του πράγματος ούτως επέκρινα- vacat] [την τ ε πόλιν 17] εργαμον και χ [ώρας όσον jSaaiAeus" "Ατταλος j9aatAea>s Ευμενούς T7J 7Γθλ€ΐ]

[προσώρισεν, ε]κτός βασιλικο[ΰ

, ελεύθερα

αυτόνομα

άνείσφορα ?]

ίο

ΐ5

2θ

[αφορολόγητα?]τε είναι δο/ceft [ Jay τε τούτων [ [του των *Ρ]ωμαίων δήμ[ου [ -] τε φαίνεται θε[λειν [βασιλέως] Ευμενούς υίό[ς - - - [ ]σαναστε άσυλ[ία [ ]ων ύφεστησαν [ [- - προυγ?]ραφαν εκρειναν [ [ ύ]περ των ιερών η[ [ 'Ρωμα] ΐος α τε άλλα 7τ[άντα [ α]υτών άπάντ[ων [ ] κρίσις του μ[ [ ]νρτΓ ω τ α [

-

] ] -

] - - /JaaiAcus" "^TTCCAOS] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]

Restorations by Passerini and Segre. 1-8 The restorations of Segre are followed, ι Σμυρναίων άρχουσι κτλ., Passerini. 3-4 περί εκείνων των πραγμάτων π]ερι ων Μιθ[ραδάτης ? εμοϊ λόγους εποιησατο, Passerini. 7 After βασιλικού perhaps a noun such as κήπου,,παοαοείσου. aut similia, Segre. 9-20 As given by Passerini. 16 Robert thinks of a phrase such as των ιερών νόμων.

C O M M E N T A R Y . For Pergamum's reception of Mithridates Eupator in 88 B.C. and the murder of Roman citizens seeking asylum in its Temple of Asclepius, that city was almost certainly deprived of its freedom and immunity by Sulla.1 But, like Mytilene and other cities, it possessed a renowned citizen whose friendship and influence with the Romans may have brought about the return of that freedom. The man himself, Mithridates of Pergamum, was an interesting and important figure in the Greek East 1

Appian Mithr. ioff., esp. 23; Plutarch Sulla n ; Cicero Pro Flacco 57; see H. Hepding, Athen. Mitt., 1909, pp. 333-34-

281

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

about the middle of the first century B.C.2 Son of Menodotos and Adobogiona, he traced his lineage back to the tetrarchs of Galatia. His mother was said originally to have been a concubine of Mithridates Eupator, and his father belonged to a very aristo­ cratic family of Pergamum. The son was reared in the court of the Pontic king, it seems, and performed his military service in the royal army. Although embassies to Rome had brought him to the attention of his Roman masters, his great chance for honor and glory came when Julius Caesar was besieged in Alexandria. He marched to his assistance at the head of an army and managed to rescue him. 3 For this act Caesar rewarded him with the title "friend" and the more material benefits of a tetrarchate of the Trocmi and a kingdom in southern Russia. Unfortunately, Mithridates did not live long enough to enjoy his rewards to the full, for in 46/45 B.C. he fell in battle against Asandros, King of the Bosporus. Pergamum honored her famous citizen with statues and inscriptions. In one of them he is credited with "having restored to the gods the city and its land that is holy" and is called the " New Founder after Pergamos and Philetairos" of his country. 4 It was concluded by Hepding, long ago, that Mithridates was described in such terms because he had succeeded in winning back Pergamum's long-lost freedom. His friendship with Caesar no doubt would have made this possible, especially after the rescue in Alexandria. That Caesar was actually responsible for restoring Pergamum's freedom upon the request of Mithridates is nowhere stated positively, but Hepding believed that it was mentioned in a Pergamene inscription, which he restored as follows: 5 [Ό δήμος]

5

[έτίμησε] τον ίαυτοΰ σ[ωτηρα και ζύεργετην] [Γάιον '/ου]λιον Γαίου ύον Καίσ\αρα τον αύτκράτορα και] [άρχι]€ρ4α και δικτάτορα το [β' πάσης αρετής και εννοίας] [!ve/c]ev άποκαταστησα[ντα τοΐς θεοΐς την r e πάλιν] [καΐ τη]ν χώραν ο[ΰ]σαν i€pa[v καΐ άσυλον καΐ αυτόνομο v.]

Another copy of the same inscription assured the correctness of the restoration in the fifth line, but Segre could not agree with Hepding's conclusion of the sixth line. He thought that the name of some divinity should follow the phrase ο [υ] σαν ie/>a[v], perhaps that of Dionysus or Athena.6 Nevertheless, like Hepding, he concluded that Pergamum had regained her freedom through Mithridates and Caesar. He interpreted the phrase "restored to the gods the city and its land sacred t o . . . " as indicating the 2

The basic article about the man and his exploits is still that of H. Hepding, op. cit., pp. 329-40. Cf. Segre, op. cit., p. 120; Geyer, R.E., s.v. "Mithridates" (15), cols. 2205-6; L. Robert, iitudes Anatoliennes, pp. 53 and 56, and in Anatolian Studies, pp. 227-29; Rostovtzeff, loc. cit., Magie, op. cit., p. 1259, n. 4. 3 Caesar Bell. Alex. 26fF.; see M. Gelzer, Caesar der Politiker una Staatsmanb (Wiesbaden, i960), pp. 230-32 (English translation by P. Needham [Blackwell, 1968], pp. 251-52). 4 In two copies, first correctly published and interpreted by Hepding, op. cit., pp. 329-31 (I.G.R.R., IV, 1682; cf. L. Robert, in Anatolian Studies, p. 230). s Hepding, op. cit., pp. 336-37 (I.G.R.R., IV, 1677; cf. L. Robert, loc. cit.). 6 Segre, op. cit., pp. 122-26. Magie (op. cit., p. 1259) believed that there was little reason to justify the restoration of the name of a god at this point.

282

EPISTULAE

restoration of the traditional constitution that had been lost since the end of the first Mithridatic War. Caesar was in a generous mood after the victory at Pharsalus in 48 B.C., and because of his dementia large numbers of cities succeeded in obtaining grants or favors of various kinds from him. It would have been the proper moment for Mithridates to bring up the question of Pergamene freedom and immunity (if not then, at any rate after the rescue in Alexandria). Mithridates probably could have received an affirmative reply from Caesar to any reasonable request. What could have been more important to him than the freedom and immunity of his city ? Accordingly, Hepding and Segre believe that Caesar restored the city's freedom. L. Robert also agrees. Magie does not. 7 But one must admit that the available evidence tends to support Hepding, Segre, and Robert. When Pergamum called Mithridates a " N e w Founder after Pergamos and Philetairos," it did not seem to be (in view of the man's friendship with Caesar) merely extravagant praise, but rather a statement of fact. It must have meant that Mithridates was respon­ sible for some momentous change in his city's political condition or status. The res­ toration of freedom would be of sufficient importance to warrant such praise. W e turn to the present letter of Caesar. It is important to remember that it is here a part of a large dossier engraved at Smyrna, Pergamum, and probably other cities. The fact that all the texts were assembled and engraved at Smyrna means that all of them were concerned with the same problem, Pergamum and its land. 8 From the letter we learn that Mithridates had met with Caesar, presumably after Pharsalus, and discussed with him the Pergamene question. Extant expressions in lines 6, 7, 8, 13, and 16 make it reason­ ably clear that the status of the city and its land is the issue.9 Segre thought that in this letter Caesar officially communicated to Pergamum his decision to declare the city and its territory free and immune. This explains his restoration in lines 7-8. Magie, however, thought that Caesar's decision " m a y have resembled in some way the recognition of inviolability received by various Asianic cities during the later third century," and that the grant of freedom was not made until the governorship of P. Servilius Isauricus (46-44 B.C.).10 There is no doubt that Servilius was responsible for some political or constitutional changes in Pergamum, for one Pergamene inscription speaks of him as "savior and benefactor of the city and one who gave back to the city its ancestral laws and an unrestricted democracy." For Magie this was decisive.11 For 7

Magie, op. cit., I, 405-6, and II, 1258-59, n. 3. Passerini thought that the present letter of Caesar had been addressed to Smyrna, but it was shown by Segre and Robert that it must have been addressed to Pergamum. The only reason why the docu­ ments had been engraved and set up at Smyrna is that the Pergamene land issue was one of great importance for all the cities of the area. Publication in many cities was believed to be essential. See Robert, in Anatolian Studies, p. 228, n. 3, and the commentary to No. 12 of the present volume. 8

9 Another fragment from the same dossier was published by Passerini, op. cit., p. 276 (fragment f), which apparently defined the Pergamene boundaries. It mentions Elaia and Julius Caesar. See also Robert, in Anatolian Studies, p. 229, for the text. 10 Magie, op. cit., I, 405. 11

O.G./.5., 449 (LG.R.R.,

283

IV, 433)·

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Hepding and Segre it meant merely that the work of restoration was not completed until the proconsulship of Servilius. It is not really necessary to separate the two acts— those of Mithridates and Servilius—for surely the grant of freedom did not solve all Pergamene problems immediately. The difficult questions of the city's lands and its legal status might have required considerable time to resolve. Indeed, Servilius was called upon to adjudicate in a legal issue which concerned the sacred laws and the asylia of the Temple of Asclepius in Pergamum (No. 55), an event which proves that the de­ cision of Caesar did not end all difficulties. To restore democratic institutions takes time; to restore them "unrestrictedly" takes even longer. Although solid evidence is lacking, it would seem that Mithridates of Pergamum managed to have his city's freedom and immunity restored. His friendship with Caesar and the weighty credits " N e w Founder after Pergamos and Philetairos," not to mention "Restorer to the gods of the city and its land," are sufficient to warrant such a suggestion. To state it as a fact may be rash, but to dismiss it altogether would be illadvised. I tend to believe it.

284

55 EPISTULA P. SERVILII ISAURICI AD PERGAMENOS

46-44 B.C.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. T. Wiegand, "Zweiter Bericht iiber die Ausgrabungen in Pergamon 1928-32: Das Asklepieion," Abhandlungen der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, no. 5 (Berlin, 1932), no. 1, p. 32 (A.E., 1933, no. 260); M. Segre, II Mondo Classico, 3 (1933): 485-88 and 4 (1934): 7 1 ; L. Robert, Hellenica, 6 (1948): 39-40; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), I, 417, and II, 1271, n. 42.

D E S C R I P T I O N . Found at Pergamum at the site of the ancient Asclepieion. Height: 0.28 m. W i d t h : 0.42 m. Thickness: 0.12 m. Height of letters: 0.007-0.008 m. (except those of 1. 2, which are 0.012 m . high).

* Αγαθή υ Τύχτηι. *Επίκριμα

περί τής

ασυλίας.

[Πό]πλιος

Σεροίλιος

Ποπλίου

[ά]ρχουσι 5

Κλεΐτος

βουλή Τίμωνος

πρύτανις:

νος ιερεύς: Μοιροφάνης Ξενοκλείους, Άπολλοφάνης του Δίωνος ίο

δρες αγαθοί

'Ασκληπιάδης

ομοίως

Νέων

άρχοντες: δήμου:

Μελεάγρου,

Περσεύς

Κρίτων

τε καϊ πρεσβευται

εμοϊ προσήλθον

Μάτρω-

Μενεμαχος Περσεως

Μηνοδώρου, υμέτεροι,

ύπερ των του ν "Ητις ύμεΐν

σις ύπερ τών του ίεροΰ δικαίων

προς Μάρκον

υίόν Τηρετεΐνα

πράγματος, εκατερων

ύπήρχεν,

τής ύποθεσεω[ς ρηθείσης,

ων Μάρκος Φά [ννιος Νεμερίου φάνισεν

[

[-■]0Ν[

283

άντίσταΦάννιον

ύπερ τούτ[ου

τοΰ]

εζ αντικαταστάσεως

[

άν­

'Ασκλη­

πιού ιερών νόμων ασυλία? τε. Νεμερίου 15

*0ρέστου:

ανθύπατος

χαίρειν.

Μητροδώρου:

'Ηρώδης Ήρώδου: γραμματεύς

γυμνασίαρχος:

υιός *Ισαυρικός

δήμω Περγαμηνών

επέκρινα·

ύφ*]

περί]

υιός Τηρετεΐνα ]

]

ενε] -

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

was corrupt Note the marks of punctuation in 5-10. 12 At first Segre thought that ΤΕΗΤΙΣ but later, on the basis of a photograph, he changed his and that the correct reading was ΠΕΡΙΗΣ, mind and punctuated as shown here. 15 νποθ4σ€ω\ς ακριβέστατα e] \κατερων, Wiegand, but Segre, with reference to S.I.G.3, 785, 7ff., and Josephus Ant. 14. 246, suggests imo6eoeu)[s cf αντικαταστάσεως νφ*] \ έκατέρων. 17-18 eve] \avwev, L. Robert among the works of Segre.

C O M M E N T A R Y . P. Servilius Vatia Isauricus (cos. 79 B.C.) helped his family to regain a share of its old prestige, while the good marriage and personal ability of his son P. Servilius Isauricus (cos. 48 B.C.) renewed family ties and strengthened its position. 1 The son, about 60 B.C., had married Junia, a niece of M. Porcius Cato and a daughter of Servilia and Dec. Silanus. His close friendship and political rapport with Cato lasted some ten years, but then he turned from his father-in-law and the majority of his as­ sociates to ally himself with the Caesarian party. Caesar received him eagerly as one of the few nobiles to make such a change. Servilius found his reward for this in the consulship of 48 B.C., during which he had Caesar himself as colleague. Further honor came a few years later when he was appointed proconsul of Asia, a position which he held from 46 to 44 B.C. In that office he was a man of exceptional ability and great humanitas. N o t since Scaevola, perhaps, had Asia found a greater benefactor or a more just administrator. Inscriptions in his honor have been found in greater numbers than for any other governor of Asia under the Republic. 2 Magnesia ad Maeandrum, Aegae, Smyrna, Ephesus, Mitylene, Cos, Calymnus, Tenus, Hierocaesarea, and Pcrgamum all honored him in the appropriate manner. And at Pergamum his name was added to the cult of Roma. 3 His concern for provincials in general was evident at an early date in his career, for in 61-60 B.C. he and Cato had managed to introduce into a senatus consultum a clause which helped to protect free cities against the unlawful demands of the publicani, an action which was sufficiently strong to cause Atticus to complain about his holdings in Sicyon and Cicero to sympathize. Following his governorship of Asia he returned to R o m e only after the death of Caesar and there sought to become an intermediary between the opposing parties. Both he and Cicero spoke out against riiiLoiuui ui LUC oeiiaLc, out On uic wn-oit n~ i^iii-cin^u. UCU·„ι.«* χΠ tr.c ccrLrlict and triiis won his reward in a second consulship in 41 B.C. Not long afterward he died, in an unknown year. When Servilius became governor of Asia in 46 B.C. the city of Pergamum may already have received its freedom. That is a point, however, about which some doubt exists (see the commentary to No. 54). The fact remains that Servilius was praised at Per­ gamum for, inter alia, "having given back to the city its ancestral laws and an un­ restricted democracy" (O.G.I.S., 449 = J.G.R.R., IV, 433=7.1.5., 8779). Clearly he 1 F. Miinzer, Romische Adelsparteien and Adelsfamilien (Stuttgart, 1920), pp. 354-58; idem, R.E., s.v. "Servilius" (67), cols. 1798-1802; Syme, Roman Revolution, pp. 69, 109, 123, 134-36, 147, 164, 170, 182, 189, 197, 208; Magie, op. cit., I, 416-17, and II, 1270-71, n. 42. 2 See Robert, he. cit., and Magie, op. cit., II, 1270-71. 3 See Robert, loc. cit., on this subject.

286

EPISTULAE

was responsible not merely for good government but also for substantial improvements in the political and/or legal status of Pergamum. W e turn to the present letter. Sometime during his term of office a delegation of nine Pergamene citizens met with him and discussed the matter of the sacred laws and asylia of the Temple of Asclepius. A certain M. Fannius Numerii f. Ter., otherwise unknown, was involved in some sort of legal difficulty with the temple. Whatever its exact nature might have been, it must have had rather broad implications for the future. 4 Its importance can be judged by the number of the delegates and their high positions in the city government. Servilius listened to both sides and then rendered his decision. Details are lacking, but the decision may have been favorable to the city and the temple. What relationship this document had to the one which appeared after the S.C. de Pergamenis (No. I I , 11. 20-21) is not known. 4 It is difficult to agree wholly with Segre (op. cit., p. 487) in thinking that the case might have been one of an escaped slave seeking sanctuary or perhaps one involving Fannius' violation of the sacred pre­ cinct by the cutting of wood or the dumping of garbage in the temple area. The issue seems much more important.

287

56 EPISTULA L. SESTII QUIRINALIS AD THASIOS

44-42 B.C.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. C. Dunant and J. Pouilloux, Recherches sur Vhistoire et les cubes de Thasos, II (Etudes thasiennes, V) (Paris, 1958), no. 176, pp. 55-56 (Plate VII, 1).

DESCRIPTION. Inscribed on the same block as the letter of Cn. Cornelius Dolabella to the Thasians (No. 21), its first line being just 0.085 m · below the last line of that inscription. Height of letters: 0.014 m.

Λεύκιος Σήστιος Ποπλίου υιός Κυρίναλ[ις Θασίων άρχουσι βουληι] δημωι χαίρειν Ίκεσιος Πυθίωνος, Κτ[ησι ό] πρεσβύτερος πρεσβευταΐ υμέτερο [ι ενετυχόν μοι - ""'] άπε8ο [σ] άν τε το παρ υμών φηφ[ισμα --

--] 5

άποσταλεντα δημόσια γράμματα [

] [ ] 3-4 See the letter of the dictator Caesar to Mytilene in 48 B.C. (No. 26), 11. 5-6; the letter of M. Antonius to the koinon of Asia (No. 57), 11. $&.; the letter of Augustus to the Cnidians (No. 67), 11. 7-8: and the letter of Augustus to Sardis (No. 68). 1. 24, with συνετυγον.

288

EPISTULAE

COMMENTARY. L. Sestius P. f. L. n. Albinianus Quirinalis (cos. suff. 23 B.C.) was the son of that P. Sestius who, as trib. pi. in 57 B.C., had struggled against Clodius and was accused the following year de vi et ambitu. It was Cicero who defended him and, with the help of others, succeeded in having him acquitted. In the course of that trial the young son had read aloud documents for his father's defense (Pro Sestio 6. 10. 144). The political affiliations of the son are clearly seen in the fact that in 44 B.C. he joined the party of the liberators and aided them in the outfitting of ships for their eastern journey (Cicero Ad Att. 15. 17. 1; 16. 2. 4). He was a constant admirer and loyal follower of Brutus, fought in the wars at his side, and became his proquaestor in Macedonia for the period 44-42 B.C. He was asked by the party of Antonius to betray Brutus, but he refused and was therefore placed on the proscription list. He was, however, pardoned by Augustus and was won over to his party. In fact Augustus admired Sestius' qualities of devotion and loyalty to the memory of Brutus (Appian B.C. 4. 51; Dio 53. 32. 4). In 23 B.C. Augustus chose him to fill the vacancy in the consulship created by his own resignation from that office—a signal honor, and significant.1 It would appear that the present letter dates from the activity of Sestius in Macedonia just prior to the Battle of Philippi, for he certainly is writing to the Thasians in an official capacity.2 The island of Thasos was under the command of the Macedonian governor and must have had little choice in the role it was to play in the few years between the death of Caesar and the decision at Philippi. It became, in fact, a supply base of real aid to the liberators. No military commander could have afforded to neglect it. After Philippi the defeated forces of Brutus and Cassius looked to their own safety in flight or capitulation, and many of the high-ranking officers escaped to Thasos (Appian B.C. 4. 136). Antonius himself came to the island and received from these officers a huge quantity of money, arms, and supplies. For its role in the cause of the liberators Thasos was deprived of its control over Skiathos and Peparethos. 1 For the facts of his career see F. Miinzer, R.E., s.v. "Sestius" (3), col. 1885; Broughton, Magistrates, II, 326, 349, and 362-63 (cf. Supplement to Magistrates, p. 59); Dunant and Pouilloux, he. cit. He wa* a friend of Horace and was honored by having an ode dedicated to him (Od. I. 4). * Th-re ?p onJy c slight possibility that the Icttci ditts £EOI*X iLe ye«u of his cuiiAulship, OUL Π is one that should not be dismissed. That it might have been written in the period of his proquaestorship is also the opinion of L. Robert, R.U.G., 72 (1959): 234.

289

57 EPISTULA MARCI ANTONII AD KOINON ASIAE

42-41 or 33-32 B.C.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. F. G. Kenyon, Classical Review, η (1893): 476-78; C. G. Brandis, Hermes, 32 (1897): 509-22; E. Thomas, Philologus, 57(1898): 422-27; E. Ziebarth, Rheinisches Museum, 55 (1900): 518-19; V. Chapot, La province romaine proconsulate d'Asie (Paris, 1904), pp. 464 and 492; F. Poland, Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesens (Leipzig, 1909), pp. 150-51 (document no. Η 26); J. Keil, Jahreshefte, 14 (1911), cols. 123-34; M. San Nicolo, Agyptisches Vereinswesen zur Zeit der Ptolemaer und Romer, I (Munich, 1913), p. 64, n. 1; F. Preisigke, Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Agypten, I (1915), 4224; F. Poland, R.E., s.v. "Technitai," in the Nachtrage to vol. V A 2 (1934), cols. 2515-16; L. Robert, Hellenica, 7 (1949): 122-23; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), I, 428-29, and II, 1279, n. 4; A. Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens (Oxford, 1953), p. 305; Ehrenberg-Jones, no. 300, p. 132; C. A. Forbes, Classical Philology, 50(1955): 239-41; M. Amelotti, Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris, 21 (1955): 127-31; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 125.

DESCRIPTION. This text was written on the verso of a British Museum medical papyrus (P. Lond. 137) discovered by Kenyon. "Why it was transcribed on the back of the medical MS., cannot even be guessed with any confidence. The contents relate to the province of Asia, whereas the papyrus comes from Egypt; and while the rescript was issued in the middle of the first century before Christ, this copy of it can hardly be earlier than the second century of our era. To guess at the personal reasons which may have made the owner of the medical work wish to preserve such a document would be obviously futile. It is written in a single column, in a rather large semi-cursive hand, and with the exception of a few letters near the end it is preserved intact" (Kenyon, op. cit., p. 476). Part of the beginning (11. 1-5) is also extant, in a very mutilated form, in an inscription said to have been found in Tralles (Keil, op. cit., cols. 123-27). See below, in the critical apparatus on lines 3-4 of the text.

290

EPISTULAE

Μάρκος 'Αντώνιος αυτοκράτωρ τριών ανδρών δημοσίων πραγμάτων από καταστάσεως, τώι κοινώι τών α­ πό της 'Ασίας Ελλήνων χαίρ€ΐν και 5 ττρότ€ρον εντυχόντος μοι iv Έφεσωι Μάρκου 'Αντωνίου 'Αρτεμιδώρου, του εμοΰ φίλου και άλείπτου, μετά του ε, ττωνύμου της συνόδου τών άπο της οικουμένης ίερονικών και στεφαιο νειτών ιερέως Χαροπείνου Έφεσίου, περί του προϋπάρχοντα τηι συνόδωι μενειν αναφαίρετα, και περί τών λοιπών ων ητεΐτο απ' ε'μοΰ τιμίων και φιλανθρωπιών} της άστρατευσίας 15 και άλειτουργησίας πάσης και άνεπιστα^/ζβια? *ca της περί την πανηγυριν εκεχειρίας και ασυλία? και πορφύρας, Ινα συνχωρήσζω} γράφαι παραχρήμα προς υμάς, συνχωρώ{ν} 2θ βουλόμενος και διά τον εμόν φίλον Άρτεμίδωρον και τώι επωνύμωι αυτών ίερεΐ εις τε τον κόσμον της συνόδου και την αυ^ησιν αύτης χαρίσασθαι. και τα νυν πάλιν εντυ25 χόντος μοι του 'Αρτεμιδώρου όπως εξη αύτοΐς άναθεΐναι δελτον χαλκήν και ενχαράξαι εις αύτην περί τών προγεγραμμένων φιλάνθρωπων, εγώ προαιρούμενος εν μηδενι καθ3° υστερειν το(ΰ} ' Αρτεμιδώροζυ} περί (του)των εντυχόντος επεχώρησα τη [ν ανά] θε(σ)ιν της δελτο(υ) ως παρακαλεί [με]. ύμΐν 8(e) γεγραφα περί τούτων. 3-4 The copy on stone at Smyrna, originally found at Tralles, reads as follows for this section (Keil, op. cit., col. 127): ΜάρκοςΆν] τώνιος αύτοκρά [τωρ τριών ανδρών δημοσί\ων πραγμάτ] ων άπο καταστά[σεως τω κοινώ τών από της Ά\σίας 'Ελλήνων] και τοις προε[δροις χαί\ρειν και πρότε] ρον εντνχόν [τος μοι κτλ. Note that τοις προεδροις is missing in the papy­ rus. The phrase από καταστάσεως has a partial parallel in the letter of Octavian to Rhosus (No. 58, II 9), where, however, the preposition is eVt. Cf. also Res Gestae Divi Augusti I. 12: επί] rfj καταστάσει τών δημοσίων πραγμάτων. 14 Papyrus has φιλάνθρωπου. 18-19 The papyrus has συνχωρήση σννχωρών, which Kenyon emended. 30-31 τον Άρτεμίδωρον περί τών | εντυχόντος επεχώρησα τη [ν - -] \θεζιν, papyrus. The change from the accusative to the genitive

291

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

in the envoy's name, first suggested by Oliver, appears correct and in agreement with the verb

governing it (καθυστ€ρ€Ϊν). Kenyon, nepi τούτων εντυχόντα; Brandis, πςρι ων 4ν€τυχ€ μοι. The editors of Sammelbuch(l[igis], 4224) suggest trepL τ(ιι/)ων ίντυχόντ((χ), which is followed by Ehrenberg-Jones. At the end of the phrase (11. 32) Kenyon has expanded - -Jflefiv, a reading confirmed by Skeat(/>er litteras), to κά]θΐξίν κτλ ; Amelotti corrected it to ανά] 0€ιι>.

COMMENTARY. At some time prior to the writing of this letter two envoys from the world-wide organization of ΙερονΖκαι and στ€φαν€Ϊται had met with Antonius and had asked him to confirm their former privileges and to add those of exemption from military service, immunity from all liturgies, freedom from billeting, a truce during their festival, personal inviolability, and the right to wear the purple (11. 4-18). He agreed. Later, when one of the envoys met with him a second time and asked for permission to erect a bronze tablet that would contain a record of these privileges, he also agreed—an understandable after-thought.1 Antonius then wrote the letter to the koinon of Asia.2 Since the meeting between Antonius and the envoys took place in Ephesus (1. 5), we have an indication of the approximate date, for, although the titles imperator and triumvir rei publicae constituendae merely point to a period in the career of Antonius (after the autumn of 43 B.C.) and offer here no solid evidence of a more precise date, our sources tell us that he had been in Ephesus on two occasions, first in 42-41 B.C. after Philippi and a second time toward the end of 33 B.C.3 Kenyon placed the letter in 41 B.C., but Brandis believed that the privileges of freedom from military service and billeting fitted better into a period when unusual military activity would have made them matters of immediate, if only temporary, importance to the organization. He therefore placed the letter in 33-32 B.C., before Actium because of the demands that the military situation placed upon the Greek East. His proposal might be countered by the reflection that the mere memory of the hardships before Philippi (43-42 B.C.) could have prompted the organization to ask Antonius for those same privileges.4 Dolabella, then Brutus and Cassius, even Antonius himself—memory of the past prompted action to safeguard the 1 Cf. the letter of Sulla to Cos (No. 49) in which the principal objective seems to be the granting of permission to the Dionysiac Artists to erect a stele in Cos which would contain a record of their privileges. A grant of privileges had to be accompanied normally by an order or directive authorizing publication. Otherwise a city might refuse to allow the stele to be erected. 2 The earliest use of the koinon of Asia as an official organ through which the Roman government communicated its pleasure or orders appears to have been in about 51-50 B.C. (?) in a letter of a Roman magistrate to the Milesians and other centers of the Asian conventus (No. 52). The organization, of course, had existed at least from the beginning of the first century B.C. See Magie, op. cit., I, 447-48, and II, 1294-95, n. 54. 3

The first visit: Plutarch Ant. 24; Appian B.C. 5. 4. 5; Dio 48. 24. The second: Plutarch Ant. 56 and 58. 4 There is the additional point that grants of immunity from billeting are now known to have been more common than was thought when Brandis wrote his article. See L. Robert, Hellenica, 3 (1946): 84-85, n. 3, and cf. the two letters of Roman magistrates to the Dionysiac Artists in the last half of the second century B.C. (No. 44,11. 5-6) with the letter of Sulla to Cos (No. 49), 11. 9-12).

292

EPISTULAE

future. There is, therefore, good reason for dating the letter just after Philippi in 41 B.C., as Kenyon and Magie have done. The professional organization to which Antonius here grants and confirms privileges was composed, as its title indicates, of those who had been victorious in sacred games and had won garlands.s Such victors could be either athletes or dramatic performers, and for that reason Brandis, Poland, and others have maintained that both athletes and Dionysiac Artists could have been members of it. This seems to be confirmed by the fact that the principal envoy from the organization was an άλείπτης, or physical trainer. The present document is not the only one which mentions this organization, but it does give us the earliest example of its formal and official title. Contemporary with or preceding it is an inscription from Erythrae which contains three wreaths and the fol­ lowing phrases: ό δήμος 6 *Ερυθραίων> 6 δήμος 6 'Ελείων, ol από τής οικουμένης αθλητού, and οι άπο τής οικουμένης UpovctKai.6 Thus the organization of athletes was separate and distinct from the organization of iepoveiKai καΐ στ€φαν€Ϊται. Membership in the former was open to all athletes, the winners as well as the losers, while membership in the latter would naturally have been restricted to those who had been victorious in the sacred games in which the prize was a garland. Of course, any given athlete could have been a member of both organizations as long as he qualified for both; similarly, a dramatic performer could have belonged to his own separate guild of Dionysiac Artists as well as the lepovetKou καΐ στ€φαν€Ϊται as long as he qualified for both. But the two organizations were quite separate and should be carefully distinguished.7 Later in­ scriptions allow us to trace in bare outline only those UpovelKai from the period after Actium to the second century A.D. 8 5 For a good orientation on athletic guilds see Forbes, op. cit., pp. 238-52, with references to earlier literature. 6 J. Kci\,Jahreshefte, 13 (1910), no. 54, p. 70; on this inscription see also Forbes, op. cit., p. 239. 7 Magie, op. cit., II, 1279, n. 4, seems to have misunderstood the intention of Brandis and Poland. They did not mean that the present organization of winners in the sacred games "included the pre­ viously independent society of athletes," as Magie assumed. They merely meant that members of one organization could also belong to the other, if they qualified. 8

Forbes,"op. cit., pp. 240-42, with full references.

293

58 EPISTULAE OCTAVIANI DE SELEUCO NAUARCHA

42-30 B.C.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. P. Roussel, Syria, 15 (1934): 33~74, Plates DC-X, fig. 1 (cf. resume in A.E., 1934, no. 217); G. Goodfellow, Roman Citizenship (Lancaster, 1935), pp. 4lff., ooff.; F. Cumont, L'antiquite classique, 4 (1935): 191-92; V. Arangio-Ruiz, Studia et Documenta Historiae et luris, 2 (1936): 497-98, 515; H. Nesselhauf, C.I.L., XVI (1936), no. 11, p. 145; L. Gallet, Rev. hist, de droit jrancais et etranger, 4 a ser., 16 (1937): 387fF. et passim; M. A. Levi, Rivista difilologia, 16 (1938): 113-28; F. De Visscher, Comp. Rend. Acad. Inscriptions, 1938, pp. 24-39 (with some restorations by H. Gregoire); M. Guarducci, Rendiconti Pontif. Accad. Arch., 1938, pp. 53-59; V. Arangio-Ruiz, Studia et Documenta Historiae et luris, 5 (1939): 552ff.; E. Schonbauer, Archiv fur Papyrusforschung, 13 (1939): 177-209 (with restorations by A. Wilhelm); F. De Visscher, Les edits d'Auguste decouverts a Cyrene (Louvain = Paris, 1940), pp. 37 (n. 1), 65, 105, and 177 (n. 1); F. von Schwind, Zur Frage der Publikation im romischen Recht (Munich, 1940), pp. 175-77; S. Riccobono, Fontes iuris Romani antejustiniani2, pt. 1 (Florence, 1941), no. 55, pp. 308-15; M. I. Rostovtzeff, S.E.H.H.W., II (1941), pp. 1012, 1570, 1581; J. H. Oliver, A.J.A., 45 (1941)'· PP537-39; J. Robert and L. Robert, R.U.G., 54(1941): 262-63; E· Schonbauer, Z.S.S., 62 (1942): 267fF.; G. I. Luzzatto, Epigrafia giuridica greca e romana (Milan, 1942), pp. 285-321; A. Wilhelm, Wiener Anzeiger, 80(1943): 2-10; F. De Visscher, L'antiquite classique, 13 (1944): n-35 and 14 (1946): 29-59; J. Robert and L. Robert, R.U.G., 59-60 (1946-47): 55-56; L. Wenger, Melanges Fernand De Visscher, II (Brussels, 1949), pp. 533-50; L. Jalabert and R. Mouterde, Inscriptions grecques et latins de la Syrie, III, 1 (1950), no. 718, pp. 395— 411; H. Seyrig, Syria, 27 (1950): pp. 32-34 (on the era of Rhosos); D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), II, 1114, n. 10, and 1288, n. 31; Lewis-Reinhold. Roman Civilization, I (New York, 1951), no. 152, pp. 389-91; L. Wenger, Die Quellen des romischen Rechts (Vienna, 1953), pp. 401-402; Ehrenberg-Jones, no. 301, pp. 133-35; G. Manganaro, Siculorum Gymnasium, 1958, pp. 289-96; J. Robert and L. Robert, R.E.G., 73 (i960): 199-200; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 128; H. Malcovati, Imperatoris Caesaris Augusti Operum Fragmenta4 (Turin, 1962), nos. LXI-LXIII, pp. 32-38.

DESCRIPTION. Found at RJiosus, limestone tinged with blue, of uneven surface. Height: 1.39 m. Width: 0.58 m. Thickness: 0.15 m. Height of letters: 0.01 m. (first two lines), 0.007 m· (elsewhere), but the size varies. Now in the Museum of Antioch.

294

EPISTULAE

5

I "Ετους . ., μηνός 'Απελλαίου [ ] [^4i5ro/cpa] τωρ Καίσαρ, θεοΰ 'Ιουλίου υίός, αυτοκράτωρ το τέταρτον, υπ [ατός] [το δεύτ] ερον και το τρίτον άποδεδειγμένος, *Ρωσέων της ιεράς καΐ άσυλου καϊ [αύτονόμ]ου άρχουσι, βουληι, δήμωι χαίρειν καϊ αυτός δε μ€τά του στρατεύματος [ύγίαινον τ]ά υπογεγραμμένα έξεληφθηι εκ στήλης εκ του εν 'Ρώμηι Καπιτωλίου [αττ€ρ ά£ιώ] καταχωρίσαι εις τα παρ ύμΐν δημόσια γράμματα, πέμψατε δε καϊ άντίγραφον [αυτών εις] Ταρσέων την βουλην και τον δημον, ' Αντιοχέων την βουλην και τον δημον, [Σελευκέω] ν την βουλην και τον δημον όπως καταχωρίσωσιν. νν "Ερρωσθε. II τριών ανδρών έπι της καταστάσεως τών δημοσίων πραγμά[των, κατά ν] όμον Μουνάτιον και Αίμίλιον πολειτείαν και άνεισφορίαν πάντων τών [ύπαρχόντ]ων έδωκαν εις τούτους τους λόγους, vacat [Έπει Σέλευ] κος θεοδότου 'Ρωσεύς συνεστρατεύσατο ημεΐν εν τοις κατά την [ Jots, όντων αυτοκρατόρων ημών, πολλά και μεγάλα περί ημών έκακοπά[θησεν έκιν] δύνευσέν τε ούδενός φεισάμενος τών προς ύπομονην δεινών [και πάσαν] προαίρεσιν πίστιν τε παρέσχετο τοΐς δημοσίοις πράγμασιν, τους τε [ιδίους καιρ]ούς τηι ημετέραι σωτη[ρίαι] συνέζευξεν πάσάν τε βλάβην περί τών [δημοσίων πρα]γμάτων του δημ[ου τ] ο [υ 'Ρωμ]αίων ύπέμεινε, παροΰσιν και άποΰσιν [τε ημεΐν χρη]στος εγένετο. [Αύτώι και γ] ονεΰσι, τέκνοις τε αύτοΰ γυναικί τε τούτου ηιτι? με[τά τούτο] έστ[αι - - - ca. 16 ] πολειτείαν και άνεισφορίαν τών υπαρχόν­ των δίδ]ομεν οϋτω[ς οϊτινες τώ]ι άρίστωι νόμωι άρίστωι τε δικαίωι πολεΐται [άνείσφο]ροί [είσιν, και στρατείας λει]του[ργία]ς τε δημοσίας άπάσης πάρε[σις έστω]. vacat ....... [yluTOS* ο επ]άνω γεγρ[αμμένος και γονείς, τέκ]ν[α] έκγ[ο]νο[ί τε] αύτοΰ φυλής Κορνηλίας έστωι [/cat? φηφ]ός τε έ[ν]τ[α]ΰθα [φερέσθω? και ] έστωι' και εάν απόντες T€t[μ,ασ#αι θ]έλωσιν [ . . ] « [ jta? 'Ιταλίας efvat θέλωσιν [ ]οστειμο[ ] . vacat [Καθόσον] ό προγεγρ [α] μ [μένος και γυνή και γονείς τ]έκνα έ[κγονοι] τε αύτοΰ προ του πολείτης [\Ρωμ,αΓο]$* άνείσφορος €[fv]at [ ] και πολεί[της 'Ρω]μαΐος άνείσφορος γεγονώς [ ? Καίσαρ α] ύτοκράτωρ,

ιο

15

20

25

295

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

κατά το ?] δίκαιον

εάν χ [ρή] σθ [at ?

θεληι

τάς]

τείμια ] τα τε υ [πάρχοντα

? εχειν,

καρπίζεσθαι άρίστωι

καρπίζεται].

ίερωσ [ύνας

] ις

φιλάνθρωπα καθάπερ

τε δικαίωι

τις τώι άρίστωι

νό] μωι

έχει

vacat

. . . .]του

[

] α [ · ] ° [ · ] °^τ€

ca. 35

χ^ιρισττ/ν

είσφ [ο] ρών δη] μοσιώ [νην τε] ι τ [- - ca. 20

] αυτ[

ύπ]οδοχης

παρα]χειμα[σίας Άσίαν?]

].

και Εύρώπην

. . τ]εκνα,

γυναίκα

τα. . ,]ήστιται

]λισ[

] αύτώ[ι] η

[αύ]του σ [

] μετά

εως o A c [

. . . ] έστω.

αυτός

ταύ­

] ° [ · · ] ^acrr/s·

ο[

]ΟΕΩΝΙΟΝ

χρημα[

]ΠΩΝΙΚΩΝ

. . . ] ΩΝΗΕΙΣ[

]ΑΙ

. . . ] να τε ούτε και νόμωι]

ούτε

vacat

. . .]ν Ιττιγαμίαν . . \ΐΗ

[

ένεκεν

vacat

[

εκπράττεσθαι

] νόμωι

Ίουλί[ωι

- -

]ΠΑΕ[

]οις

]Α[.

]ΝΟΥΜΕΝΕΣ[

[ά]ρεσκει

.]0[..]Ω

Άτειλίωι ταΰτα

^αρχείαι

]ΕΑΟΣ[

ττάντα

A[.

. .]

]ΟΝΕ[.

.]ΕΡΟΙΚ[..]

ΧΙΟΥΤΕ . . . .]ας

οΰτ€ [

] ' Ρ ω μ α ί ω ν λαμβ[άν]ειν

. . .λαμ]βάνεσθαι

[

ών . . δη]μοσίων

ου μ[-

θελου[σιν

Ευρώπης

-] εζάγηι θρ€μμάτων πολειτείαν

παο* αύτ\οΰ

Εάν τι? α]ύτών

κατηγορ€Ϊν

νειν κρί]σιν

των πραγμάτων

vacat

έγκ]λημά αυτών

των τέλος

οϋτ€

οϋ-

είσποάττεινλ. θελ[ηι

της ίδια? xp€t[as·] evfcj/cei/ εκ τε των ιδίων

τ€

της ιδ«χ]$" xp[€t]as" [e]ve/ce[v - - - ca. 15 - -] τούτων

9

ΤΕΓΡΑΡ

' Α σ ί α ς και

επαρχει-

- · ca. 2 2 - - - e j i o a y ^ i η εξάγηι

εκ πόλ] εως η εκ χω [ρας

τ€ δημοσιλώνην

?....]

ca. 2 0 - - -] α υ τ ώ [ ι ] εις πόλιν η χώραν

- .

τ[ε εν]άγειν

κριτηριόν

τ€ κατ*

λαμβά­

τε συνιστασ [0αι - - - - ca. 20

]ew,

«πι τούτων

των

πραγμάτων

πάντων iav τ€ i]v οίκωι

τοις ιδίοις

[νόμοις

iav τε iv πόλεσιν] άρχοντας

τάρχοντα]ς

ημετέρους

[- - - ca. 20

κρί]ν€σθαι αΐρεσιν αυτών

τε είπηι-

[iav δε κριτηριόν

κρίνη(ι)

θελωσιν,

αυτών

την

εστί ποιησ ?] ηι περί

τε

προσανε[ν]εγ-

τι περί αυτών ύπ]εναντίως

yetjvrjTai, τ ο ύ τ ο

2 $6

iav τ€ προς

efvai

] μήτε τις αλλω [S" η iv τ] ούτ [οις γεγραμμενον κας γνώ]μην

ελευθεραις

η άν-

κύριον

τούτοι [ς

EPISTULAE

[μη eiva]i.

vacat

[Έάν δε τ]ις τούτου

[τ]οΰ

προγεγραμμένου,

γ[ονε]ω[ν,

εκγόνων [θελησηι ?] πρό[κ]ριμά

τ€ κεφαλής

[προς]

τβ άρχοντας

ca. 20 - - - - ]ειν,

άντά [ρχοντάς

τών ιδίων πραγμάτω[ν

τεία δστις]

τ€ τους

ήμετε]ρους

πρ]εσβευτάς

εξ]ουσίαν

[άρε]σκει.

πολει-

ποιησηι

"Ητις αν

[τ]οΐς

[χρήσθαι

δυνη]σονται,

*Ρωμαίων δέκα μυριάδας

βελόνη?]

άξ[ίωμ]α

εάν τε εν 'Ρώμηι

εγγύας

ίκανώ[ς

τούτοις

γνώι τοις τώι δημωι

τούτου τ€ του χρήματος παρά

τώι

άρχουσιν

[ου]-

[πρ]οφα[ίν]ειν

δι]δομενωι

τώι

ση-

τ€ έστω [ι εάν τε] εν τηι επαρχείαι

τούτων κριτηρίω]ν

νόμων

δούναι κατ [άδικοι εσ]τωσαν

εκπραξίς

άντάρχ σίν τε ήμε]τεροις

είναι

δόλωι τ€ ττο [ν] η [ρ] ώ [ι κωλύση] ι ώ έλασσον

δεδογμενοις

στερτίω]ν

πεμ-

ή ύπενάντιον]

η εκ προαγωγής

ούτοι οι προγεγ ραμμένοι φιλανθρώ]ποις

τε

τοις προγεγραμμενοις

τ€ άρχων οσα τ[ε κατά ταύτα δει, μη ποιήσηι

ή όμολ] ογηι ( ?) η ενεχυράση(ι)

τ\ίκνων

δεξασ(?αι

τ€ προς την [σύ] νκλη το ν

παραγείνεσθ[αι πειν περί]

όνομα

ποιησ[ασθαι π [ρ] €σβ€υτάς

[την ήμετε]ραν

γυναικός,

τε αυτών

ε[κ]πράσσειν

τε θεληι περί

δε

τών

[κρίνε]σθαι

αρέσκει,

ταύτα τά

προγεγραμμενα όπως οϋτ]ως

γείνηται,

άρχ[οντες

άντάρχοντε]ς €/ccic." I am muie u*«.iiiicu to attribute the delay to bad weather, despite the shortness of the trip from Ephesus to Rhosus. Ad­ mittedly, the numeral indicating the local year is missing from the heading of the document as we have it, but to suppose that the letter was received or registered in Rhosus a year later (i.e., 29 B.C.) is difficult. A few months delay, yes. More than a year, no. 9 Roussel, op. cit., pp. 46-51. 10 C.I.L., I 2 , 709 (cf. p. 714 and ibid., VI, 4, fasc. 3, 3, 37045); H. Dessau, I.L.S., 8888 (incomplete); R. Menendez Pidal, ed., Historia de Espana, 2d ed. (Madrid, 1955), pp. 195-98 (with good photo­ graph of the entire inscription and a full transcription); A. Degrassi, Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae, II, (Florence, 1963), n. 515. 11 U. Wilcken, Grundzuge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde, I, 2 (Leipzig-Berlin, 1912), n. 462. The papyrus, however, was re-examined by Wilcken expressly for inclusion by Roussel in his edition of the Rhosus documents. Therefore, Roussel's text (op. cit., pp. 48-49) is to be preferred over the

302

EPISTULAE

p . c u m Manius Valens veteranus ex[. .]ter recitasserit partem edi[c]ti h o c q u o d infra scriptum est: I m p . Caesar [d]ivi filius trium[v]ir rei publicae consultor dicit: visum [est] edicendum m i [hi vetejranis dare om[nibus], ut tributis

[....]ti (Lacuna of at least four lines) Ipsis parentibu[s libjerisque e o r u m e[t uxo]ribus qui sec[um]que erunt im[mu]nitatem o m n i u m r e r u m d[a]rc; utique io

o p t i m o iure optimaq[u]e l e g ( e ) cives R o m a n i sunto, immunes sunto, liberi su[nto mi]litiae muneribusque publicis fu[ngen][d]i vocatio <esto>.

Item in [. .]s tribu s(upra) s(cripta) sufFragium

[fejrendi c[e]nsendi[que] potestas esto et si a[b]sentes voluerint [cjenseri, detur, quod[cum]que iis qui s(upra) s(scripti) sun[t ipjsis parentgatum

[n]eque procuratorem [ne]que em[p]torem t[ri]butorum esse [p]lace ° d^cr*?** Ori"en.t°J. Wir1*»1v divergent views, however, have been advanced by scholars concerning the official Roman position in regard to this local law both before and after A.D. 212. The survival 22

De Visscher, Les adits, pp. 41-47. The best discussion of the whole institution will be found in Gallet, op. cit., pp. 20off. 23 De Visscher, Les edits, p. 53: "C'eut ete rendre tout commerce juridique impraricable avec ces individus-Protee, en mesure de se couvrir de telle ou telle legislation au gre de leurs interets." 24 For an excellent introduction into the great controversies that have arisen as a result of this book see Wenger, Milanges Fernand de Visscher, II, 521-50. In addition cf. E. Weiss, op. cit., pp. 71-82; Schonbauer, Tlie Journal of Juristic Papyrology, 7-8 (1953-54): 107-48; S. von Bolla, ibid., pp. 149-56; and F. Pringsheim, ibid., pp. 163-68.

306

EPISTULAE

of native principles in the Greek East was proved by Mitteis. His theories about the interaction of these principles and the official Roman law, however, have not gone unchallenged by scholars. Schonbauer attempted repeatedly to show that the local law was allowed to survive in the East in peaceful co-existence with the Roman law, even after the edict of Caracalla. Political expediency may have prompted such a policy. Co-operation and persuasion can often be more successful than outright rejection of foreign customs. This explains his belief that Seleucus and family had a choice between two systems of law. 25 De Visscher also attacked this particular aspect of Mitteis' view. He believed that the Roman law introduced into the provinces of the East was not in principle imposed upon new citizens. They could use the local law. The real evolution of the law was not one in which there was a provincialization or contamination of the Roman law but rather a Romanization or penetration of Roman elements into the local laws. This Romaniza­ tion was not forced upon the provinces but was voluntarily accepted by them because of the superiority of Roman law and the prestige that went with its use.26 Arangio-Ruiz, however, defended Mitteis' original view. But he would remove the word "battle" from that view. There were no battles or riots or other displays of violence. Otherwise Mitteis was right.27 One thing seems clear and unshakeable. Local law continued to exist alongside Roman law during the first two centuries of the Principate. Whether it was outlawed after the Constitutio Antoniniana cannot be answered with assurance. It may have been tolerated and allowed to die gracefully, leaving vestiges of its former existence in the great body of Roman law, or it may have been declared illegal and suppressed by force. In any case it will have left its mark. Thus, lines 53-59 cannot be lightly restored, for the implications of the restoration will have to reflect the official Roman stand in regard to local law in the East. And that is a matter about which we have no positive information. Opinions differ. " E . Schonbauer, Z.S.S., 49 (1929): 3ΐ5π°·; ibid., 51 (i93i): 277Π".; ibid., 54 (1934): 337**".; ibid., 57 (i937) : 3096°.; ibid., 62 (1942): 26jff.; and his articles cited above, n. 21. 26 De Visscher, Les edits, pp. 55-59. 27 V. Arangio-Ruiz, Bulletin de Vlnstitut d'Ugypte, XXIX, 1946-47 session (Cairo, 1948), ΡΡ- 83-130. Cf. his remarks in Studia et Documenta Mistortae et lurts, 5 ^1939): 552II.; Annalx del Hemmarw gturidico dell' Universitd di Catania, I (1946-47), 28-37; and Storia del diritto romano7 (Naples, i960), pp. 338-41, 424-27.

307

59 EPISTULA MAGISTRATES ROMANI AD MYLASENSES

After 39 B.C.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. A. Boeckh, C.I.G., II (1843), 2695 b, 2700 e, 2717 b ; Le Bas-Waddington, Voyage archeologique en Grece et en Asie Mineure: Inscriptions, III (1870), nos. 442-43; report of Briot's copy in B.C.H., 18 (1894): 543-44; Abbott-Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton, 1926), no. 32, pp. 327-28; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), I, 442, and II, 1290, n. 39; Ehrenberg-Jones, no. 20 (in part only); Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 132.

DESCRIPTION. Two stones from Mylasa, copied first by Boeckh, then by Le Bas-Waddington, but with substantial improvement by Briot. It was Briot who saw that the stone here designated as A ought to be placed to the left of B, not the reverse, as done by Le Bas-Waddington and Johnson.

A

B

κα,Ι [τ] ay ύπερ των δημοσίων κτήσεις

εΐς τε τον κοινόν της

πόλεως καρφισμόν

τίνων άνα\στά\σεις

ύπονοθευειν,

πωμεν φορολογεΐν

την [Μυ]λασίων

σίαν, ημεΐν μεν αν ΐσως fj εφ[ορώ]σιν 5

νατος δε αν όμως κάκεί\ν]οις τους δημοσίαι κυρίους, μ[ή]τε δημοσίων

ύποκειμεν[ω]ν,

eiv τους ενός εκάστου

γένοιτο

χρημάτων

μήτε

ληστηας

προδανεισμοΐς

308

--]οματων

λογεύεπιτελωνεΐν

τών εκ της ο δη και αύτοϊ

ιδιωτών ΙΓ χρεα δη/χοσια την πόλιν

το, ου δια το καθ* ύπαλλαγη[ν

Ι

προσόδων

( ?) τάς τε κεφάλας

ερειπίων ετοίμως ά[ν]αφερουσης,

άδύ-

δημοσίαι

el μη κατά τελών επίρειψιν

[λόγο]υς

επιτρε-

περιου-

αίσχρά τ€ και ημών ανάξιος, πράξουσι

θελοιεν, της πόλεως ούδ[ε την] επανόρθωσιν ίο

οΐς δη καν

πόλιν εις δουλικην

προϊδόμενοι

ύπηγάγον-

την Καίσαρος

]

Λαβιηνου

ύπερ

Μυλασεων

EPISTULAE

Boot's new readings in capitals. I [eVi]κτήσζις (?), Johnson; at the end, ΤΗΣ. 2 intTPE-. $πράΞουσι. όπροσόδωΝ. ηλογΕΥ-. 8 £πιτ€λων€ΐΝ. g ΛαβνηνοΥ. 3 irepiOY-. \άΔΥ-. ίο προϊΒόμεΝΟΙ. 11 Le Bas-Waddington show ΙΔΙΩΤΩΝΙΓ at the end of the line in stone A; Johnson has [etV]; perhaps (?) ύττηγάγοΝ- at the end of the line in stone B. 12 άναλ] ωμάτων (?), Johnson; ]0ματων, Briot; ΜυλασίΩΝ, Briot.

COMMENTARY. In his letter of 31 B.C. to Mylasa (No. 60) Octavian describes the suffering of the city during the Parthian invasion of 40-39 B.C. under the leadership of Q. Labienus. Even after Actium it still had not recovered from the effects of that terrible episode. The present document, clearly a letter, explains the financial debacle into which it had fallen. Despite textual difficulties it is possible to see that the collection of tribute had been entrusted to greedy and corrupt opportunists who amassed a profit by the financial enslavement of the people. So desperate had the situation become that "the advance of loans by private citizens" was accepted to pay the public debts. The result of such a procedure is not difficult to imagine: an entire city would eventually owe a crushing debt to a few wealthy families. An intolerable situation, this was the sort of financial chaos that during the Principate required the appointment of special imperial agents, the curatores rei publicae. In this age, however, there were no such agents. The provincial government usually did what it could. And the Senate in Rome might be asked for suggestions. Here we find a Roman magistrate, perhaps even Augustus, outlining the situation in Mylasa. But, unfortunately, his suggestions or regulations to correct it are missing. To speculate on his identity, beyond the fact that he lived in the period after 39 B.C., would be useless.

309

GO EPISTULA OCTAVIANI AD MYLASENSES

BIBLIOGRAPHY. W. Frohner, Les inscriptions grecques du Musee du Louvre (Paris, 1865), no. 72, p. 157; Le Bas-Wadding ton, Voyage aecheologique en Grece et en Asie Mineure: Inscriptions, III (1870), no. 441; P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Gottingen, 1888), no. VI, pp. 7-8; W . Dittenberger, S.I.G.2, I (1898), 350; F. Hiller von Gaertringen, in W . Dittenberger, 5./.G. 3 , II (1917), 768; AbbottJohnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton, 1926), no. 30, pp. 326-27; T. R. S. Broughton, " R o m a n Asia," in T. Frank, An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, IV (Baltimore, 1938), 586, n. 42, and 664; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), I, 431, 442, and II, 1290, n. 39; Ehrenberg-Jones, no. 303; H. Malcovati, hnperatoris Caesaris Augusti Operum Fragmenta, 4th ed. (Turin, 1962), no. LXV, pp. 39-40.

DESCRIPTION.

Α

Αυτοκράτωρ

Two fragments found at Mylasa, now in the Louvre.

Καίσαρ

θεοΰ * Ιουλίου

υίός ν ύπατος τ€ το τρίτον ταμενος

ν Μυλασεων

Xfjt οήμωι χαίρειν 5

καθεσ-

άρχουσι

βου-

νν ει ερρωσθε

ν καί αυτός 8ε /χ€τά

στρατεύματος

ύγίαινον.

T€pov μεν ήδη περί της σης υμάς τύχης

ν κα[1

πρεσβευτών,

310

τ[οΰ]

πρό-]

κατ[ασχού-]

προσεπε[μφατε]

μοι, ν καί νυν παραγενωμενω[ν ίο

κα-

λώς αν εχοί'

νν Ούλιάδ[ου

- - ]

των]

31 B.C.

EPISTULAE

Β

[- -]s* τών πολεμίων σης της πόλεως, άποβαλΐν

πταΐσαι

ν πολλούς

ν πολίτας,

καϊ

ουκ ολίγους

τα? ν τινά? δε και συνκαταφλεγε 5

της τών πολ€μίων

κρατη[θεΙ-]

μεν αΙχμαλώτο

ώμότητος

μεν

τας τη

ίο

ν ύττ&ιξαν

ά-

δε μοι καϊ π€ρΙ

της χώρας της λελεηλατημενης

νν και τών

επαύλεων

ώστε

τών εμπεπρησμενων,

πάσιν υμάς ητυχηκεναι· βον παϋοντας\ τος

εμ

ν εφ' οΐς πάσιν

τ α ύ τ α πάσης

άξιους άνδρας γενομεν]

^Ρωμαίους

πόλε[ι,]

ν ούδε των

ναών ούδε των Ιερών τών άγιωτάτων ποσχομενης·

[υς]

φονευθε[ν-]

τειμης

καΐ

συνε\ί-\ χάρι­

ους υμάς πε [pi] ]

Restorations by Waddington and Dittenberger. A 4 (at the end) The copy of Le Bas-Waddington shows Κ'. Β ι κρατη[θεί\ \σης is correct and was read also by Dittenberger (S.I.G.1 [1883], 271) and followed by Viereck (including his notes). F. Hiller von Gaertringen (S.I.G.3) has πρατη [θεί\ \σης, which must be a mistake, but one which subsequent editors (except Malcovati) have followed. The copy in Le Bas-Waddington here shows that the first letter of the word must ΣΥΝΚΑΤΑΦΑΕΓΕbe a kappa, for we see the vertical bar and the lower oblique hasta. 4 Stone, ΤΑΣ. 10-12 Restored by Dittenberger; Waddington had suggested συνε\ [γνων ατυχήματα] ταύτα πάσης τειμής και χάρι\ [τος καί εύνοιας οντάς άζί]ους υμάς πε\ [πονθεναί .

COMMENTARY. After Actium (September 2, 31 B.C.) Octavian crossed over to Asia and remained at Samos, except for a trip to Ephesus, until January of the following year. He probably sent this letter to Mylasa in the autumn or early winter of 31 B.C., when he was consul for the third time. For Asia it was a period when cities and states looked anxiously to Octavian for mercy or reward, depending upon their individual actions during the past few years. He proved merciful and helpful rather than vindic­ tive and cruel, a policy adopted, perhaps, from a mixture of sympathy and expediency because of the immense exactions of Brutus and Cassius, the liberators, and then Antonius. Mylasa, at any rate, had shown her loyalty and friendship long before Actium and might reasonably expect "assistance. In his letter Octavian gives a resume of the city's suffering. His description of the city's capture, the taking of prisoners, the murders, the cruelty and impiety of the enemy, the pillaging of the land, and the burning of the homesteads must refer to the Labienus episode nine years earlier. In that Parthian invasion, under the leadership of the renegade Quintus Labienus, the son of Caesar's famous legatus, Mylasa suffered a terrible fate after its capture.1 So great, in fact, was its suffering that even now, after Actium, it has not recovered. Unfortunately we do not know the specific request made 1 See the commentary and notes to the S.C. de Panamara (No. 27), where the sources are cited; cf. also Magie, loc. cit.

3U

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

of Octavian by the Mylasan embassy at this time, but it must have been the granting of s o m e favor designed to aid in the city's rehabilitation.

Octavian certainly must have

granted it, but that it was n o t sufficient to assure rapid recovery m a y be seen in another letter, later in date, in w h i c h the city's financial situation m a y be described as practically hopeless. 2

Strabo, however, w h o k n e w of the city's destruction d u r i n g the Parthian

invasion, was able to say of it in his day that τοιγάρτοι κ€κόσμηται

παγκάλως

(14. 2. 23).

στοαΐς τ€ καΐ ναοΐς, et τις

άλλη,

A n d Hybreas, the Mylasan orator w h o had refused

to yield to Labienus and had caused his city to resist, is said by Strabo (14. 2. 24) to have r e t u r n e d to his city καί άνέλαβζν

εαυτόν τ€ και την πόλιν.

W e m a y assume, then, that

m u c h rebuilding must have taken place and that by about the end o f the first century B.C. some progress has been m a d e . 3 2

Abbott-Johnson, op, cit., no. 32 (our No. 59). J. G. C. Anderson, in "Some Questions Bearing on the Date and Place of Composition of Strabo's Geography" in Anatolian Studies Presented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsay ed. W. H. Buckler and W . M. Calder (Manchester, 1923), pp. 1-13, concludes (p. 10) "that Strabo's knowledge about Eastern affairs was becoming meagre by B.C. 6/5, but that it extends to B.C. 3/2." 3

312

61 EPISTULA CUIUSDAM VINICII AD CUMAS ET IUSSUM AUGUSTI

BIBLIOGRAPHY. H. W. Pleket, The Greek Inscriptions in the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden at Leyden (Diss., Leyden, 1958), no. 57, pp. 49-66 (Plate XI); G. Dunst, Gnomon, 31 (1959): 675-77; A. E. Raubitschek, A.J.A., 63 (1959): 99; A. M. Woodward, J.H.S., 79 (1959): 195; idem, Classical Review, n.s., 9 (1959): 280-81; A. H. M.Jones, Studies in Roman Government and Law (New York, i960), p. 6; J. Pouilloux, Revue Beige de Philologie et d'Histoire, 38 (i960): 42627; Κ. Μ. Τ. Atkinson, Revue Internationale des droits de Vantiquite, 7 (i960): 227-72 (excellent photograph facing p. 231); V. Arangio-Ruiz, Bullettino dell' Istituto del Diritto Romano, 64 (1961): 323-42; W. Kunkel, Studi in Onore di Emilio Betti, II (Rome, 1962), 591-620; A. M. Woodward et al, S.E.G., XVm (1962), 555; J. A. Crook, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, n.s., 8 (1962): 23-29; J. H. Oliver, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 4(1963): 115-22 (cf. idem, A.J.P., 84 [1963]: 163).

DESCRIPTION. Marble stele broken at the bottom, damaged on the right and left sides, decorated with a festoon of ivy at the top. N o w at Leiden. Height: 0.475 m · Width: 0.31 m. Thickness: 0.075 m · Height of letters: + 0.010 m.

313

27 B.C.

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

[Α]ύτοκράτωρ [Μ]άρκος

[Ει]

Καίσαρ

* Αγρίπας

τίνες δημόσιοι

[7r]oA€CL>s" έκαστης 5

/χατα τούτων

Θεοΰ υιός Σ€βαστος

Λευκίου έπαρχείας

[έ]παρχείας

τ [e,

μηδέ

ο αν εκείθεν

[η] δώρον λαμβανίτω.

η άποκατασταθήναι

[ο]ν δοθη, τούτο

μηδεις]

άπο[τίμημα] άπενη

εν τε δώρω δεδομένον

η ιερόν της πόλεως

].

είσιν είτε τι[νά άναθή] -

μηδέ άγοραζέτω

[η ή]γορασμένον

[ ] ν ε[

τόποι η ιεροί έν 77·όλ€σ[ι - -]

των τόπων είσιν έσονται

[τ] αυτά αίρέτω

ίο

υιός ύπατοι

[νεγμένον]

ή, [δς αν έπι της]

εις τον δημ[όσιον

φροντιζέτω,

λόγον]

και ο αν χρ [ημα ένεχύρι] -

μη δικαιοδοτείτω

{ι} vacat

[.] Vinicius proc(onsul) s(alutem) d(at) mag(istratibus) Cumas.

Apollonides

L.f. No [race(us)] [c(ivis) v(ester)] me adeit et demostravit Liberei Patris fanum nom[ine] [ven]ditiones possiderei ab Lusia Diogenis f. Tucalleus c(ive) [v(estro)], 15

[et c]um vellent thiaseitae sacra deo restituere iussu Au[gu]'· [s]ti Caesaris pretio soluto quod est inscreiptum fano, [. .]berei ab Lusia.

E(go) v(olo) v(os) c(urare), sei ita sunt, utei Lusias quod

[est] positum pretium fano recipiet et restituat deo fa[num e]t in eo inscreibatur Imp. Caesar Deivei f. Augustu[s] re[sti]20

[tuit.

Sei] autem Lusia contradeicit quae Apollonides pos[tu]-

[lat, vadijmonium ei satisdato ubi ego ero. [tere magi]s probo. [

ος] Ούινίκιος

[λωνίδ]ης 25

Έπι

[προσηλ]θεν [πράσεως

Λευκίου

χαίρειν λέγει Νωρακεΐος

και ύπέδειζεν κ]ατέχεσθαι

[λεως πολείτου τ0

Lusiam prom[it]-

πρυτάνεως Φανίτου vacat άρχουσι

πολείτης

Διονύσου

υπό Λυσίου

Κυμαίων.

ύμέτερό[ς

*Α [πολ\ μοι]

ιερόν oVo/x [ατι] του Διογένους

[Τυκάλ]-

υμέτερο] υ, και δτε ηβού [λοντο οι 6\ασ€ΐ] -

ί "

]

ι At the end there may have been a vacat. Pleket has [τό έβδομον ? ] ; Atkinson, [το £' ?]. T-U ι,

. . »r />

»....-

1 . .i . 1 .

1

·ιι

rt

ι

τ

f

ι

τ

η

έ[πραξαν], or έ[δοσαν]. The amount of available space seems to be about 6-7 letters long. 3 Pleket, έν πόλεσ[ιν η έν χώρα J π]όλεως κτλ.; Arangio-Ruiz, εν πόλεσ[ιν η κατά της \ π]όλεως κτλ.; Oliver, with hesitation, έν πόλεσ[ι της ύπερ \ π]όλεως κτλ.; Atkinson, πόλεσ[ιν όσοι] κτλ.; Kunkel, πόλεσ[ιν αϊτινες] κτλ. 4 Pleket, τι[νά άναθέ- ? ] ; Atkinson, τι [να χρη] |/χατα; Kunkel, κοσμη] |/χατα. 6 Pleket, από [μηδενός]; Kunkel, άπο [τίμησιν]; Arangioο Pleket, δημ [όσιον τόπον] ; Arangio-Ruiz, δημ[όσιον λόγον]. ίο Ruiz, άπο [τίμημα]. Pleket, χρη[μα αντίκα ά\πο]δοθη\ Kunkel, χρ[έους χά\ρι]νδοθη; Sokolowski, in S.E.G., XVIII, no · 555» ΧΡ[ήμai; (3) 6-πως 6 The mere fact that there is room for only one word at the end of line 2 makes the case for calling the document either an edict or a highly abbreviated letter more probable.

317

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

for frequently in such cases it would delegate or authorize an official, usually one or both of the consuls, to investigate the matter more thoroughly and to render an opinion. This is exactly the sort of procedure which, I believe, was followed by the Senate at some time immediately prior to the issuance of the iussum by Augustus in 27 B.C. The following parallels may be cited. 1. S.C. de Itanorum et Hierapytniorum Litibus (No. 14). By the terms of this decree of the Senate the consul L. Calpurnius Piso was instructed to appoint an arbitral tribunal to review the history of the quarrel between the Cretan cities of Itanus and Hierapytnia over a stretch of land and to hand down a final decision. The consul, thus authorized to act, obeyed. 2. S.C. de Collegiis Artificum Bacchiorum (No. 15). This decree of the Senate, which settled the long-standing quarrel between the Athenian and the Isthmian guilds of Dionysiac Artists in 112 B.C., stipulated that in regard to the common fund of the com­ bined guilds the consul M. Livius was to conduct an investigation and hand down a decision. He obeyed. 3. S.C. de Stratonicensibus (No. 18). Here the Senate in 81 B.C. stated that the dictator Sulla, if he so wished, was to determine what amount of taxes the surrounding cities and lands were to pay to Stratonicea. 4. S.C. de Oropiorum et Publicanorum Controversiis (No. 23). M. Terentius Varro Lucullus and C. Cassius Longinus, the consuls of 73 B.C., had been commissioned by the Senate to appoint and head a senatorial commission to investigate and render a decision in the dispute between the officials of the sanctuary of Amphiaraus and the publicans. The two consuls obeyed. 5. S.C. de Mytilenaeis (No. 26) of 25 B.C. The consul Marcus Silanus, in the absence of Augustus, convened the Senate and apparently was authorized by it to seek approval from Augustus for the renewal of a treaty with Mytilene and then to give the oaths. This last example, despite the poor condition of the text, certainly brings the procedure down to the age of Augustus. Taken as a whole, several conclusions may be drawn from these examples. Clearly it was common for the Senate to instruct the consul or consuls to investigate and render binding decisions on specific problems raised by provincials. This is a procedure well I r n n w n tr\ nt 7

Tb^S^ f ^ ^ Q r i o · *r,ctri!^*"^Cr,c T,"i*"e COI"rlr>l1',r,ic',t~''^ IP tllS £"»*"Tr^,

Λ

:ίβ,1Λ/!,ί

consulta. And the verbs used to describe the decision of the consul, when he was authorized to render it, were €πιγιγνώσκ€ΐν and Ιπικρίνζιν* The consuls in such a situation did not act on their own initiative but were empowered to act by the Senate. This was true even under Augustus. When we turn to Cyme, we see that the matter of private ownership of public or 7 In such examples of "consular discretion" the Senate often gives the consul a consilium. See De Ruggiero, Uarbitrate pubblico in relazione col privato presso i Romani (Rome, 1893), pp. I58ff., and W. Liebenam, R.E., s.v. "Consilium," cols. 919-20. 8 See the senatus consulta cited as examples: No. 14,11. 74-75; No. 15,11. 61-64; No. 18,11. 103-6; No. 23, 11. 1-4; and cf. the S.C. de Pergamenis (No. 12), U. 7-8; 5./.G. 3 , 831 (letter of Hadrian), 1. 9.

318

EPISTULAE

sacred places is one of purely provincial interest. One cannot conceive of Augustus' regulation as having had very wide application. It certainly might have extended throughout the province of Asia, but hardly beyond it. Therefore, one may assume that the problem reached the Senate in the usual manner, by envoys coming to Rome and requesting a Senate hearing. The Senate in turn must have agreed that their com­ plaints were justified and accordingly have passed a senatus consultum authorizing the two consuls, if they saw fit, to hand down their decision on the matter. Augustus (and Agrippa) did so in the old, customary manner. After all, it was a small affair and was not likely to require much time. To follow the old procedure would do no harm. They reviewed the case and communicated their decision to the envoys. They probably then wrote a letter to the city, cities, or provincial organ that sent the envoys and in it explained their decision officially. This decision could certainly be referred to as a iussum. And perhaps the verb at the end of line 2 was i[πέγνωσαν] or i[ir€Kpivav]. It must not be pressed, however. 9 Thus it is possible that Augustus in 27 B.C. is not issuing orders or pronouncements on his own initiative without the prior approval of the Senate. He may be following the time-honored procedure so familiar from republican times. The Senate had turned a matter over to him and his colleague and requested a decision. They complied. Therefore, the possibility exists that the first document may be simply the bare decision of the two consuls, perhaps shortened and extracted from a broader context.10 There is, however, no way to prove that such is the background of the document. Like all the other suggestions, it must remain tentative. We turn to the letter of Vinicius, and are confronted immediately by the problem of his identity. It is a complex problem, for at least two and possibly three Vinicii are known to have been proconsuls of Asia. M. Vinicius (cos. A.D. 30 and 45) appears to have held the office in A.D. 39/40, but 67 years is much too long for Cyme to wait for the restoration of the god's property. He may be rejected as a candidate.11 P. Vinicius (cos. A.D. 2) was the governor in about A.D. 3, although a somewhat later date is also possible.12 And a M. Vinicius is also attested as a governor, according to an inscription from Mylasa mentioned by L. Robert. 13 Whether he is the same person as the consul 5 The amount of space available would seem to limit the restored word to six or seven letters at most. A shorter word would be preferable. 10 Mrs. Atkinson's suggestion (op. cit.t pp. 240-41) that the prescript is given in a "curtailed form" seems well founded. The stele appears to have been erected at private cost by the worshipers of Dionysus, and to reduce the expense a shortened version of the documents would therefore be expected. 11 R. Hanslik, R.E.ts.v. "Vinicius" (7), cols. 116-19, refers the inscription from Mylasa reported by L. Robert (Revue archeologique, 1935, II, 156) to this man and not to the M. Vinicius who had been consul in 19 B.C. He also believes that the inscription from Chios (A.E., 1932, 7; c(. Pleket, op. cit., p. 61) was erected to honor the consul of A.D. 30 and 45. 12 See R. Hanslik, R.E., s.v. "Vinicius" (8), cols. 119-20, and Pleket, op. cit., p. 61. Mrs. Atkinson, op. cit., p. 329, makes him governor in the period A.D. 10/11-14/15. 13 Revue archeologique 1935, Π, 156-58. See n. 11, above, and Pleket, loc. cit.

319

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

of A.D. 30 and 45 is not wholly clear, but Robert seems to be convinced that they are not identical. He identifies him with the M. Vinicius who had been consul in 19 B.C.; however, the possibility of confusion because of the similarity of names would make it advisable to suspend judgment. Which of these men is the Vinicius of the Cyme document ? Mrs. Atkinson, believing that the natives of Cyme approached Augustus himself during his presence in Asia in the period 20-19 B-C, thought that the M. Vinicius who had been consul in 19 B.C. might have been our Vinicius. Her reasons for sug­ gesting such a date are not in any way conclusive, and her view must remain merely a possibility.14 Pleket, on the other hand, thought that none of these Vinicii was the governor of our document, for to him it was much more likely that there would not have been much of an interval between the iussum of 27 B.C. and the subsequent action of Cyme which prompted the governor's letter. He thought that L. Vinicius (cos. sufF. 33 B.C.) may have held the governorship in either 28/27 or 27/26 B.C., and others tend to support him.15 Despite the numerous Vinicii that might enter into consideration, it seems much more probable that the action of Cyme in seeking to recover possession of the sanctuary for the god would not have been delayed very long. Once the iussum of Augustus had become known in Asia, the worshipers of Dionysus in Cyme would have taken almost immediate steps. And there is nothing in either of the two documents which would permit the suggestion that they went first to Augustus and then to Vinicius. The sequence of events most likely was the usual one, simple and uncomplicated. They learned of the iussum and its applicability to their situation, went to Vinicius, and re­ ceived a favorable response. Vinicius then sent the letter with his official decision to Cyme, and the worshipers erected the stele after the successful recovery of the sanctuary. The stele, erected at their own cost, probably presented the documents in a shortened form, an especially reasonable supposition in the case of the first document. Thus, the governor Vinicius was most likely the consul suifect of 33 B.C. Vinicius, of course, was very careful to give credit to Augustus for the original legal concept. Even in senatorial provinces the authoritative presence of Augustus was a very real thing. The mere fact that the governor wishes Augustus to be recorded as the " Restorer" of the sanctuary is highly significant. Outward agreement between Senate auci iriun,cpj> waa One uiiiig, piaiuciu yuiiwio 47", 67, 2 2 , 27, 28, 37 άνά, 12, 9 ( ά . μέσον) ; 23, 4

(ά. μέσον) αναβατός, 14, 15 άναγινώσκω, 70, 2 αναγκάζω, 14, 5 3 ; 3 1 , ΐ ι 8 ; 52, ι 8 αναγορεύω, 16, 15; 65, D 58, 6ο αναγράφω, 2 9 , ι ; 37, 2; 49, ί ο ; 65, D 62. ά. το 8όγμα: 9 . 5 άναΒέχομαι, ΐ 8 , 19; 20, C 8 άναδίδωμι, 3 4 , 7". 38, 21 άναζητέω, 3 8 , 12, ι 6 άνά#€σι?, 5 7 . 3 2 ανάθημα, 15, 4 4 , 4 9 ; ΐ 6 , 48; 6ι, 4 άναίδ€ΐα, 5 2 , 42 άναιρέω, 2 0 , C 3 ; 4 ° , Ι3ί

, 67, 34

άνακο/χιδη, 3 8 , ί ο άνακομίζω, 18, 119 ανακρίνω, 14, 12 άνάκρισις, 6η, 28 ,;,.~κ...0-'.... — -s ivavcoa», 6, 2 ; 10, A 3 ; 16, 3. See also χάρις φιλία συ/χ/χαχια τε ά. ανάξιο?, 5 9 . 4 άνάστασι?, 5 9 . 2 αναστρέφομαι, 33, 7 - 8 άνατΛ?τ//ζι, 2 2 , 2 5 ; 37» 2 ; 49. 9, Ι4ί 5 7 . 2 6 ; 6 5 , 29 άναφαίρ€τος, 57, 12 αναφανδόν, 3 1 » 143 αναφέρω, 2 2 , 2 4 ; 59, ί ο

This index includes only those words which are wholly or partially extant in the unrestored parts of the texts.

369

INDEX I

άνδραγαθέω, 70, 14 ανδραγάθημα, 22, 9 ανδρεία, 58, 89 άνδριάς, 31, 5 2 άνείργω, 67, 23 άνεισφορία, 58, ίο, 20, gi άνείσφορος, Ι, Α 5, Β 3, 51 22, 12; 44, 6"; 58, 22, 29 άνζίτισταθμεία, 57, 15 άνεπιστάθμευτος, 44* 5 άνέχω,

52, 42

άντ^κω, 31, 76, 88 άνηρ, 26, A 9; 28, A 39; 31, 116, 124, 127, 129; 34, 9; 58, 91; 70, 4. άνδρες καλοί καγαθοί: 35, 4ί 3*5» 6; 39, 4, 7; 47. ίο, 41; 49, 5; 55, ι ι ; 58, 77 (, 31, 99, 118, 129 131, 132 εύλογος, 70, η εύμένεια, 34, 14 ευμενής, 65, 3 c w o i a , 14, 51; 18, ι ι , 4 5 ; 26, a 12; 34, 18, 24; 49! Β ι ; 58, 82, 89, 92 εύνόως, 34, ι ι ; 35, 7 ευρίσκω, 58, 79; 65, D 4 8 , 56; 70, ι ι ευσέβεια, 34, 13 ευσεβής, 32, 8; 65, D 59 ευτύχημα, 6s, 8-9 βύτυχτ}?, 65, 12, 13 εύχαριστέω, 14, 5", 26, a 7; 52, 39; 65, 17 ευχάριστος, 68, 27 ευχερής, 9, 66; ί ο , Β ίο €ύχη, 2 3 , 43 εύχρηστέω, 35, 13 ευχρηστία, 65, 25 Έφέσιος, 28, Β 12 έφίημι, 3 1 , ΐ ο ο ; 38, ι8 έφίστημι, 70, II έφοράω, 59, 4 εχ0/οα, 47, 36 εχθρός, 3 1 , H 9 Ι χ ω , 2, 19, 26; 3, 8; 14, 58; 15, 36, 4 1 , 43, 44, 5ο; 17. 7; ι 8 , 56; 20, Ε ι ι ; 2ΐ, col. ι, 5, 8; 25, 2, 8; 26, a 9, 12, 29, d 25; 28, A 33, 4 2 , Β 9; 30, 14; 31, 87; 3 3 , 4, 6; 35, ι ι ; 38, ι 8 ; 49, Β ι, 9ί 52, 55; 5$, 78; 6 3 , ί ο ; ηο, ι 6 . (Α) έχω κατέχω καρπίζομαι: 28, Β 15, 17", 51. 40; 58, 31, (Β) έχω διακατέχω καρπεύω: 22, Ι7· See also ει έως, 9, 51; ΙΟ, Β 12; 15, 44; 58, 38. έως αν: 31, 122; 44, 7· See also χράομαι ζημιόω, I I , 9, Η ζήτημα, 70, 81 ζωή, 65, ί ο

INDEX I

ηγεμονία, ΐ 8 , 4; 2 3 , 4 9 ; 2 6 , b II ήγεμών, 31, 86 ήγεομαι, 18, 126; 2 2 , 30; 2 3 , 57; 28, A 3 8 ; 7 0 , 7 ήδεως, 26, a I o , b 34 ήδη, 6θ, A 7; 67, 9 7)801^)7, 65, 20 ήδυ?, 58, 8 i , 9 2 ; 6 5 , 4 , 8, < I9 / -ηλικία, 44, 7 iJAios-, 45, 4 17/ictjr, 14, 4 3 ; 34, 8; 3 5 , 7', 40, 16; 48, 12. (Α) -ημών: 2, 19; 14, 25, 2 9 ; 15, 20, 2 3 , 24, 28; 2 6 , b 10; 28, A 40; 3 1 , 88; 3 3 , " , 37, 4 ; 38, 7; 5 1 , 8; 5 8 , 1 3 ; 5 9 , 4 ; 65, D 32. (Β) ήμΐν: 6, 8; 9, 3 i ; ί ο , Β ί ο ; 14, 5, 7, 13, 18, 2 2 , 2 3 , 53 (bis); 15, 25; 26, b 5; 3 1 , 81; 34, Η*, 35, 3, 1 1 ; 38, 2 4 ; 45, 3. 11; 47, 4 4 ; 4 8 , 11; 58, 12, 9 0 ; 5 9 , 4 ; 6 5 , D 35. (C) ημάς: 14, 9, 17, 5 i , 55; 15, 17, 2 1 , 2 5 ; 18, 5, 11; 23, 3 ; 2 8 , A 2 2 ; 33, 6; 34, 5ί 38, 9, " , 2 i , 2 2 ; 45, 2; 49, Β ι . See also παρ* ημών ημέρα, 7, 62, 6 3 ; 13, 9; 14, 14, 57, 65, 67 (bis), 77, 80 (bis), 86, 87, 88; 15, 34ί 3 1 , I 2 i , 134; Ι ? ; 7, 38; 8, 8; 9, ί ο ; ί ο Β 2Ι2 » 21ί 15. 4ί 22, 4; 2 3 ' 6ο *' ■ί· κ ο μ ί ζ ω , 10, Β ι; Ι 8 , 6 4 ; 2 6 b 2; 3 1 , 9 2 ; 33, Η κόπριον, 67, 23 κοσμεω, 5 8 , 90; 65, D 36 κόσμος, 57, 22; 6 5 , 8, D 4 ο κουρία, 2 6 , b 39 (ev κουρι' αι '/ουλιαι) κρατεω, ι 8 , 40; 26, C125; 28, Β 17; 6ο, Β ι κρίμα, 7, 6 2 ; 9 , 2 9 ; ί ο , Β 1 1 - 1 2 ; 12, 20 κρίνω, Ι, Α 7, Β 7, C 5; 7, 51. 59, 6 3 ; 9, 29, 32, 57,' 63. 65, 67; ΙΟ, Α 5, 8, Β ί ο , ι ι ; 14, 22, 27, 64, 66, 68, 8ο, 85, 87, 88; 22, 12, 19; 3 1 , 2ΐ, 123, 124, 134; 34. 19; 4 2 , 19; 43. 2ο; 47, 28; 54, 15; 58, 56, 57, 70 κρίσι?, 37, 4 ; 54, 19; 58, 54; 66, 5 κριτήριον, 7, 46; 9, 49", ί ο , Α 5", 14. 6ο, 6 ι ; 22, 20 (bis), 2 1 ; 3 1 , 113; 37, 5; 39, 9; 5 8 , 53, 70 κριτής,!, 55 (bis); 7, 49, 59, 6 1 ; 2 2 , 19; 3 1 , 105, 123, 125, 130, 134» 142 κτήμα, 6, Β 2 κτησις, 3 3 , 8; 37, 3; 59, ι κύκλος, 28, Β 12; 30, ι 6 κυριεύω, Ι , Α 6, Β 6; 2, 21, 24 κύριος, 9, 6 5 ; ι ι , ί ο , ι 8 ; 13, 4; 15, ι ι , 53; ι 8 , 52; 3©, Η ; 37, 4ί 58, 58; 59, 6. bee also όπως κυρίως, 14, 28 κυρόω, 2 3 , 41'. 28, Β Ι7ί 31, 75 κωλύω, 5. 7. 27; 15» 45ί 31, 114 κώμη, 18, 9 8 , 105; 28, Β 14 λαγχάνω, 3 1 » 120, 143 λάθρα, 37, 6 λαμβάνω, 2 , 55', !5> ΐ8 (ε[λά]βοσαν), 2 4 ; 3 1 , 99; 45, Ι5ί 5 8 , 47, 53', 6ΐ, 7'. 65, 12; 7 0 , ί ο λ α ό ? , 20, G 8

INDEX I

λέγω, 4, 4; 2 3 , 2 8 ; 3 3 , 15; 4 3 , 6; 4 5 , 14. Ae'yei (edict): 3 1 , 73 λεηλατεω, 6θ, Β 8 λείπω, 35, 15 λειτουργεω, 3 1 , 115 λ€ΐτουργία, 3 1 , 104, 114, 136; 49, Β 9; 58, 22 λ€υκόλιθος, 6 5 , D 6 3 , 65 λευκός, 5 2 , 49 λ η σ τ ε ί α , 59, ί ο λίθονος, 37, 2 λίθος, 5 2 , 49 (eVt λ. Aeu/cou) Ai/rrji/, I , A 6, Β 6; 2, ι 8 ; 18, 98, 105; 2 0 , Ε ι 6 ; 2 3 , 46; 71, 4 Aoyetico, 5 9 , 7 Ao'yo?, 5, 3 ; 7, 50; 2 3 , 54; 4 1 , 6; 4 5 , 15; 58, 11; 65, D 46. Aoyous· 7τοΐ€Γ^: I , C 3 ; 2, 6, 17, 27, 32, 36, 46, 56; 5, 2 4 ; 7, 4 2 , 44, 56; 9, 16, 3 8 ; 10, A 3, Β 5, 9 ; I I , 5, i i - i 2 ; 12, 6; 13, 7; 14, 2 , 1 9 - 2 0 , 4 1 , 7 2 ; 15, 56, 6 2 ; 18, 26, 73, 7 4 ; 2 2 , 5; 2 3 , 19; 2 4 , 12; 2 6 , b 16, c 1; 27, 12; 3 1 , 85; 34, 12 (λόγον π.) λ ο ι π ό ? , 14, 7 i ; ι 8 , 6 4 , 119; 26, c 2 0 ; 3 3 , 2 ; 38, 17, 2 2 ; 57, 13 Λώος, 65, D 70 Μάιος, I , C ι ; 2 2 , 3 μακρός, 3 1 , 95 μάλα, 3 4 , 13 (μάλιστ* αν) μάλλον, 2 8 , A 3 2 ; 65, 25. μάλλον η : 20, C 5 μο.νυΐί*^>, j j , ~ * Μάρτιος, 24, 3 μαρτυράω, 3 1 . H7*. 7 0 , 13 μάρτυς, 3 1 , 9 5 , 139 μεγαλοφροσύνη, ΐ 8 , 83 μέγας, 20, C 8; 5 8 . 13; ], ίο, Β ι ι ορκίζω, 43, 25 όρκιον, ι 6 , 43; 26, b 3^» c 6; 28, A 26 ορμάω, 2 2 , 13, 14, 15, 21 όρος, 1 2 , 7ί 65, ί ο όρος, 2 , ι 8 ; 2 8 , Β 14 όσος, 3 , 7; 7, 6 ο ; 9, 6 3 , 66; ί ο , Α 5; ι 8 , 5ο; 2 2 , ι 6 , 17; 2 3 , 54; 3 1 , 8ο, 1 3 2 ; 33, 8, 13; 35, ι ι ; 3 7 , 4 ; 70, 13 όσπ€ρ,

2 1 , col. ι , 13; 2 3 , 541

„ 71, 3 όστις, 1 2 , 2 2 ; 15, 15', ι 8 , n o ; ι ΐ 4 , ι ΐ 5 ; 21, col. 2, 3 ; 2 2 , 2 3 ; 2 3 , 17; 26, d 2 2 ; 30, 10 ό τ α ν , 1 4 , 7 2 ; 2 6 , b 2 3 ; 3 8 , 11 ότ€, 3 1 , 9 4 ; 6Ί, 27; 7 ° , 16" ότι, ι 6 , 9', 2 6 , b 32; 3 3 , 1 2 ; 34. 1 1 ; 39, 10; 4 1 , 2 ; 6 5 , t 11, D 59 ότιοΰν, 6 7 , 32 ου μην άλλα και . . . , 3 4 , 15 ου μόνον . . . άλλα και, 2 6 , b 9; 28, Α ι8-2ΐ; 43, 1 3 15; 6s, D 38 οΰ, 2 , 25ί 2 2 , 20 ού84ποτ€, 14, 33 ούΒζίς, 2 6 , b 3 2 ; 3 3 , 12; 3 5 , 6; 36*. 8 - 9 ; 38, 5 - 6 ; 40, 1 1 ; 5 1 , 3 2 ; 5 8 , 14, 8 3 ; 6 5 , 6, 11, Ό 47 ονν. ι . Β 4- τ . . 11.-5°: *7« 7· 4 3 , ι ι ; 4 9 , Ι3ί 5 8 , 7 8 , 9 2 ; 68, 2 6 ουσία, 3 1 , 17 oure: o v r e . . . ούτε, 3 9 , n ; 40, 9; 6 7 , 18 οΰτως, 9, 65 (ούτω 8οκ€ΐ κύρια eivai δ ε ί ν ) ; ί ο , Α 9 , Β 9*. 1 3 , ι ; 14, 58, 6 6 ; ι 8 , ι ΐ 2 ; 2 2 , 30; 2 3 , 35ί 2 6 , b 3 3 , d 2 (οΰτως ως αν. . . ) ; 4 8 , 5; 5 1 , 3 9 ^ 5 8 , 2ΐ, 7 1 ; 65, Ι5· (Α) ούτω καθώς: 6, Β 9', 9 . 2 6 ; 14, 7 9 , 9 6 . (Β) οΰτως !8o£ev: 2 , 10,

21. 30, 35, 40; 5, 3 1 ; 7 47, 58; 9, 60; 10, β ι ο · 13, 7ί 15, 54; 16, ΐ ; ι 8 , 6 7 | 22, 95 26, ι 9 , c 5. (C) οΰτως καθώς άν αύτώι (αύτοΐς) των 8ημοσίων πραγμάτων πίστςώς τ« της ιδία? φαίνηται: 2, 12 (without ούτω? καθώς 39; 6, Β 9; 7, αν αύτώι), 5ο; 9, 7 0 - 7 2 ; ί ο , Α 11 [ Β 13; 12, 1 5 - 1 6 , 1 9 - 2 0 ; 14, 7 3 - 7 4 ; 15, 6 3 , 6 5 ; 16, 8; ι 8 , 1 2 0 - 2 2 ; 2 2 , 3 1 ; 2 3 , 6 8 - 6 9 ; 26, b 2 5 - 2 6 ( ο π ω ? (ώστ€ ω? άν . . .), c 7 άν . . ) , 1 9 - 2 0 ; 4 2 , ι 6 . (D) οΰτως 8οκ€Ϊ: ί ο , Α 8 ουχί, 2, 4ΐ οφζίλω, 2 2 , ι 6 , 22 (bis), 2 3 ; 28, Β 16 όφ€λος, 65, 12 όχυρόω, 17, 13 όχΰρωμα, 28, Β 14 όφις, 65, 8 παί?, 68, 26 παλαιό?, 63, 5 πάλιν, 6, 9; 26, b 27; 57, 24 πανηγυρις, 57, 16 Πάνημος, 65, D 70 πάντοθίν, 23, 44 παρά: (A) dative: 52, 52; 58, 68; 70, 17. (Β) gen­ itive: ι, Β 3; 7, 52; ί ο , Β ι; 15, 33\ 18, 65, ι ΐ 7 , 123; 22, 17 (bis); 27, 17; 31, 126; 34, 4, 15; 35, 3, 14; 38,3, 21; 39, 3, 7; 40, 32; 49, 6; 56", 4; 58, 52; 64, τ < · 6*

■>· rfR ->.»' τ η

ο

( Q accusative: 14, 7; 15, 10, 20, 2 3 , 26, 2 8 , 52; 3 1 , 82; 3 8 , 19; 40, 7", 5 2 , 5 6 ; 64, 2 1 ; 65, 17, D 8 2 . (D) παρ' Ιμου: 49, ΐ 6 . (£) παρ ημών: 2, 4 1 ; 2 6 , b 29. (F) παρ' ύμΐν: 2.6, b 28; 43, 6; 49, 9", 58, 6; 67, 29 παραβαίνω, 40, 14 παραβόλιον, 66, 8 παραγίνομαι, 2, 41", 5, 29; 7, 54, 62; 9, 22, 48; 14, 13» 32, 49! 16", 52; 22, 7»

INDEX I

17, 27, 2 8 ; 2 4 , 6; 35. 8; 40, 3 1 ; 58, 6 2 ; 60, A 9 παραδίδω μι,

2 1 , col. 1, 2 1 ,

23 / παραίτησις, 3 1 , 103, 124 παραίτιος: (Α) παραίτιος άγαθοϋ: 15, 47 {παραιτίαν των μεγίστων αγαθών); 58, 80 (άγαθοϋ τίνος ύμειν γείνεσθαι παραί­ τιος) . (Β) άεί τίνος νμΐν άγαθοϋ (παραίτιος) θέλω γενέσθαι: 2 6 , b 4 . 35 ί 35» 9, 13 (ά. τ. άγαθοϋ παραίτιοι γ.); 38, 22-23 (πειρασόμεθα α. τ. ά. π. .. . γίν€σθαι) παρακαλάω, 2 8 , A 2 2 ; 44» 8; 47, 4 3 - 4 4 , 46 παραλαμβάνω, 65, 2 παραλείπω, 58, 83 παραστείχω, ΐ 6 , 13 παρατάσσω, 20, C 3". 30» 7 παρατείχισμα, 71» 2 (?) παρατυγχάνω, 14, 61 (πα/>€τυχοσαν) παραχειμασία, 58, 35 παραχρήμα, 5 7 . 19 παραχωρίζω, 43» 20 πάρειμι, 9. 32", 15. 39ί ΐ 8 , 66; 26, a 1 1 ; 3 1 , 75, Ι 0 ° \ 125; 4 3 , ι ι ; 5 8 , 17; 58, 57 προσβολή, 6η, 19 προσγίνομαι, 6s, 20 προσέρχομαι, 3, 2; 15, 62; 55. ιι'. 6ΐ, 25- προσηλθοσαν: 4. 7-8; 14» 91 προσέχω, 2, 44*. 9» 25; 38, 8 προσηκόντως, ΐ8, ΙΟΟ προσηκω, 31, 82, ι ι 6 ; 39, 7

INDEX I

προσηλόω, 20, Ε 6; 26, b 19, 23 προσκρίνω, 7, 55 προσλαμβάνω, 15, 4°; 65, 24

προσμερίζω, 28, Β 5", 30, ι ι , 13 πρόσοδος, 2, 18, 2ο; 12, 15; 15, 22; ι8, ιο6; 20, Ε 13, F ι; 21, col. ι, ιό; 22, 23; 23, 2ΐ, 23, 47; 26, b 31; 28, Β 14; 3ΐ, 105; 59, 6 προσορίζω, ΐ8, 97, 105, ιο8; 23, 22, 56 προσπέμπω, 6θ, Α 8 προστάσσω, 65, 28, 29", 6η, I I , 21

προστίθημι, ιό, 45, 46; 23, 44 προσφέρω, ΐ6, 56 πρόσωπον: κατά πρόσω­ πον, 7. 42, 44, 5λασ€ΐ?, 52, 44-45", 59, 3, 12; 6ο, Α 3 Μυτιληναίοι, 25, 6, 8, ι ι ; 26, a ι, b 14, c 18, d ι, 9, 10, 19, 20, 21, 28; 72, 2, ίο; 73, 3, b ι; 75, ι Ναρθακιεΐς, 9, 23, 31. 45. 48 Νατεία, 37. Β 28 Νεμέα, 15, 30 ([Νεμέα]), 53, 57 Νυσαεΐς, 48, ι; 69, II 2 Πανάμαροι, 30, 16 Πάτραι, 43. ιι Πέλλα, 15, 37 Πελοπόννησος, 15, 18 Πεπαρηθιοι, 21, col. I, 18 Περγαμον, 54, 6; 65, D 58 Περγαμηνοί, 12, 7ί 52» 45 Πλαρασεΐς, 28, Α 6, Β 2, 4, 6, ίο, 13 Πριννεΐς. 7. 42. 46.